2009 June | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for June, 2009

Security PLUS Facilitation – A Success Story

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

Beginning on July 29, commercial airline traffic to the US from Shannon airport in Ireland will have the advantage of full preclearance. That means that all US customs, immigration and agricultural clearances will be completed before the passengers leave Shannon. And that, in turn, means that commercial traffic leaving Shannon can go to any airport in the US (at least any airport within range of the aircraft and big enough to handle its arrival). No longer will passengers have to arrive at an American international airport, clear customs, and then make their onward domestic connections.

Better still, beginning in October 2009 the same preclearance service will be available for general aviation aircraft (smaller, non-commercial planes). After clearing immigration and customs in Shannon, these planes will be allowed to fly direct to any general aviation airport in the US.

This is a win-win-win for everyone. Passengers get convenience – they can make their travel plans direct from Shannon (or Dublin when the preclearance facilities open there in 2010) without any need to change planes at a busy US airport.

Shannon wins too – having a preclearance facility will attract traffic through the airport, and help build the economy in western Ireland.

And the US wins as well – preclearance of passengers overseas will help keep problems overseas. Contraband and illegal goods will be interdicted before leaving Ireland. Passengers who are not admissible to the US will be turned around and sent home before they depart, instead of making the sad return trip from the US. Sophisticated radiological screening systems will help keep weapons of mass destruction off shore.

All of this will be a great boon to trade, to tourism, and to security. Who could ask for anything more? It isn’t often that a government policy makes this much sense.

Paul Rosenzweig, the founder of Red Branch Consulting, PLLC, formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Acting Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland State & Local, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

The Key to Cyber Security is Information Sharing

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Information sharing is critical to properly addressing cyber security. Particularly if one subscribes to the public health model versus a military security type model. As the Center for Disease Control (CDC) must have open information sharing if it is to help us fight pandemics, cyber security must have the same level of openness, or the public health model will fail.

Today we have two main impediments to open information sharing in the cyber security arena. On the Government to Private Sector (PS) side, the problem is government’s reluctance to share all the threat information it has because they want to protect their intelligence sources and methods. On the Private Sector to government side, there are actually two problem areas. The first is a fear that proprietary industrial information will be revealed. The second area is the fear that the government might use the information given by a private company, and the company would be held liable for any damage done, or for any breach of the law. While all of these concerns are legitimate and understandable, they are also problems that are clearly surmountable.

In the cyber realm, the government must do the hard work of developing trusted partners with whom they can share the most sensitive information. This will be a cultural change for the government, but one that must occur in order everything to work. Additionally, a method of redaction must be developed in the short term that allows the maximum amount of sharing and the most useful format for the information, while still protecting sources and methods. It is not enough to say it is “too hard” and do nothing. We must find a way.

In the other direction, the governemtn needs to help the PS to develop a way to pass on information of attacks, penetrations, and even successful defense techniques while protecting the industry equivalent of sources and methods. There must be sensitivity toward protecting proprietary information that raises the comfort level of the corporate leadership. The next step would be the development of a real liability protection for companies trying to assist the government. There must be a legislatively founded exemption program that specifically protects these companies. This needs to be further backed up with a real insurance protection program that would indemnify any firms that might fall through a crack in the legislative exemptions.

Only if we break down these very real concerns will we get to the needed level of information sharing. If we fail to achieve this, we will never reach the degree of cyber security that is needed. This should be a major priority for the Obama Administration and his Cyber Coordinator.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security | Comments

Immigration Meeting: Amnesty Is the Wrong Agenda

Friday, June 26th, 2009

By Jena Baker McNeill, J.D.

Yesterday the Obama Administration held a closed-door immigration conference, bringing together key members of Congress. It has been reported that this meeting focused on finding a way to push for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress this year.

During the 2008 Presidential elections now President Obama made a promise to take up immigration reform within his first year in office. He reiterated this pledge when he spoke to the Hispanic Congressional Caucus shortly after he was elected.

All too often “comprehensive immigration reform” has been another name for amnesty. Amnesty is not the right approach and is not likely to pass muster with the American public — they recognize that giving amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants is much too costly and would encourage more people to break the law. The country learned this lesson in 1986 when 2.7 million people were granted amnesty. The program was wrought with fraud and it did nothing to stem illegal immigration– instead even more people attempted to enter the United States.

A more appropriate agenda would focus on efforts to stop illegal immigration and secure the border, reform the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and open up more legal avenues by which to allow individuals to come into the United States.

Recent reports indicate that this approach works. The Bush Administration ramped up internal enforcement and took steps to secure the border in recent years, and the number of illegals dropped from 12 to 11 million.

The Heritage Foundation delineates a plan for immigration in its backgrounder: “Next Steps for Immigration Reform and Workplace Enforcement.”

Amnesty isn’t part of the plan, and it shouldn’t be for Congress.

Jena Baker McNeill is a homeland security policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

‘Pen and Pad’ Session with the Secretary

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

This afternoon I had the opportunity to participate in a ‘Pen and Pad’ Session with Sec. Napolitano. I joined the session via teleconference, and, like her in-person appearances before the Hill, the media and speaking venues, the Secretary came through loud and clear on her key points and messaging.

The same could not be said for the reporters whose voices and questions were either inaudible or incomprehensible via the teleconference bridge. Whether they were in the room with her or dialing in like my fellow blogger, John Solomon of In Case of Emergency Blog and I did, it was a real challenge to make out the questions that were being asked to the Secretary.

Hopefully a transcript will appear at some point to help me fill in the blanks, but in the meantime, here is what I learned from the Secretary’s opening remarks and responses to the often unintelligible questions.

Upcoming Travel
The Secretary will be spending the next several weeks on the road with meetings in the UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Kuwait meeting with her counterparts in those countries to discuss everything from information sharing; immigration; law enforcement operations; US Coast Guard operations; various agreements between the US and the respective nations she’s visiting; cargo screening/supply chain security; privacy protections and more.

Upcoming Focus – Counter Terrorism
Another focus of her trip and for the next 4-5 weeks will be focusing on the counter-terrorism mission that the US has here at home and with its international partners. In her words, “There’s lots of work to be done.”

When she was questioned about why she and the Department are focusing on counter-terrorism over the next couple of weeks and whether the threat of something occurring had changed, Sec. Napolitano offered that “the threat is always with us” but that it was also “an ideal time to focus on this as to what’s going on around the world.”

She also shared that she is interested in learning more about the UK’s deradicalization program that they have working on and what lessons could be learned from their efforts.

PASS-ID is good; “REAL-ID was unreal”
Upon her return to the US she will be focusing on the recently introduced PASS-ID and will fulfill recommendations of 9/11 Commission. The Secretary described PASS-ID as a “common sense bill” with plenty of “bipartisan support” from the nation’s governors, Members of Congress, the National Sheriff’s Association and other law enforcement organizations.

It was also her view that this legislation would help the country in its “never ending quest to satisfy the mandates of the 9/11 Commission” and allow us to “go beyond them.”

She described the REAL-ID Act as “an unfunded mandate on the states” and as one of the most negatively received pieces of legislation that she had ever seen in her career.

“REAL-ID was unreal. It wasn’t going to happen. It was dead.”

She seemed pretty clear on her preferences – don’t you think?

The UK and Terrorism
In response to a question about her travel to England, the Secretary observed that in terms of sheer number of incidents, the UK “has had more threats that have materialized and moved forward,” and “It’s important that we lash up with them.”

In terms of actual threats to the UK, the US and others, she shared that, “it’s Al Qaeda,” “copycats,” “wannabes” and others.

“My view is we have to stand in a constant state of readiness.”

She also observed that, “we can’t put the United States under a bubble.”

“How we share information is important” and, “terrorism can occur in different ways as we have seen.”

Cyber Security
In response to a question about cyber security and the role of the Pentagon, its newly announced Cyber Command; the establishment of the White House Cyber Security Advisor and DHS’ role, Sec. Napolitano reinforced the fact that DOD will have the lead over the entire .mil Internet domain. For its part, DHS would lead on the .gov (non-military side of government) as well as the private sector and the .org domains as well.

In offering her response, the Secretary also shared that Phil Reitinger who she tapped to be the Deputy Undersecretary of the Department’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was recruited into his post. Reitinger was also recently named by the Secretary to lead the National Cybersecurity Center (NCSC) as part of her efforts to consolidate cyber programs within DHS.

As to the role of the newly created White House Cyber Security Advisor, this individual (when named/selected by the President) will play a “purely coordination” role and not be “operational” in any way.

“If there are policy issues to be resolved, [the White House Cyber Security Advisor] will be there to do that.”

Future leadership for DHS’ Information & Analysis Directorate
When questioned about when a new nominee would be named to replace Phillip Mudd who withdrew his name from consideration to be the Chief Intelligence Officer and Under Secretary for Information & Analysis Directorate she said she would give “no time estimate on Phil’s replacement,” but she and her team were “moving quickly to find someone for his position.”

Mexico and National Security
In response to a question regarding immigration and comments by New York’s senior US Senator, Chuck Schumer about wanting to improve “operational control” of the US border, Sec. Napolitano gently pushed back on the questioner stating that she didn’t know what he meant by “operational control” of the border. In her mind and experience though, we (the US) did not have operational control over the border when over half a million illegal aliens were being captured by US Border Patrol and other law enforcement officers. That situation has changed dramatically as there are not near the numbers of persons coming across the US border thanks to a number of improvements. One of those improvements that she mentioned was the much-maligned Secure Border Initiative (SBI). She explained that a number of the initial problems SBI had experienced have been worked out and that it was fully “operational in the areas it has been deployed.”

“I feel very good about where things are going on the border.”

In terms of the on-going drug war that has been going on in Mexico, the Secretary shared that, “We have a historic opportunity to work with Mexico to go after the cartels…. From San Diego to Brownsville” [TX].

She was careful to point out that the cartels are just not confined to border areas. “They have tentacles that reach far into communities around the US.”

She pledged that the Department would continue to work with the Mexican government, but it was also committed to working with the state and local law enforcement along the southwest border to keep everyone informed and working together. She mentioned that there are regular calls with sheriffs and law enforcement personnel. While she did not say she was part of those calls I got the distinct impression that she probably made it a personal practice of hers to participate in them in some shape or fashion. It was obvious that the border issue is a personal one for her.

And Then We Got Cut Off
Whether it was the fact that the call was starting to run over its allotted 30 minute timeframe; the Secretary got fed up with the poor audio quality and feedback on the teleconference bridge or someone forgot to pay the DHS phone bill, the Pen and Pad session with the Secretary suddenly ended for John Solomon and me. While John and I were still on the conference line (he being in NYC; me in my office in downtown DC), there all of sudden was no more Secretary Napolitano or inaudible, mumbling reporters on the other end of the phone. That meant John and I were out of luck as to asking the Secretary our questions. Oh well… That’s how the cookie crumbles as Mom would say, but it was still an informative session to absorb and I was grateful to be given the opportunity to participate.

As for the questions I was looking to ask if given the chance – I prepared five of them not knowing what the other participants might ask. You always need a back-up/contingency plan in circumstances like these and they are offered at the end of this post for your review.

My takeaways from the Pen and Pad:
• There is no doubt that the Secretary is in command of the DHS ship. She knows her priorities, she’s focused on working them, and she’s prepared to plow ahead to get there. Sec. Napolitano is also crystal clear in her direction and feelings on programs and issues. Once she’s decided on what’s she wants done (after doing her homework), get out of the way.

• The Secretary is also carrying with her the voices, experiences, hopes and frustrations of her former colleagues, the US governors and law enforcement communities in her new role. She is keenly dedicated to making sure that whatever the Department does in any of its mission areas that it takes into consideration the prospective impacts (e.g. costs, operations) of the people out in the homeland who have taken on offices and responsibilities to serve their states and communities.

• Reporters either in person or on the phone need to speak up and speak clearly in order to be heard. The Secretary had to ask at least one reporter to speak up when he/she was questioning her. Furthermore, it’s always been my experience that you can’t read lips on a teleconference nor are you understandable if you sound like one of the adults on a Charlie Brown ‘Peanuts’ television special.

Prospective questions for Sec. Napolitano

Immigration Reform
• With the President meeting with a bipartisan assembly of Congressional Members today to discuss immigration reform and the lingering memories of the two recently failed efforts by Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation, what is your counsel to him having dealt with immigration as a former governor and now as the chief executive officer of the Department vested with border security and immigration oversight responsibilities?

NAO
• Given Tuesday’s official announcement of shutting the NAO down, what are the lessons learned that you and the Department are taking away from what has been a protracted battle with Members of Congress, civil liberties groups and others about the use of technologies and assets such as those that were to be used by the NAO?

Infrastructure Investments and Inclusion of Risk & Resilience
• With the Administration’s extraordinary investments in rebuilding substantial portions of the country’s aging and worn infrastructures, can you describe what role if any that DHS has had in working with the Department of Transportation and other Federal mechanisms to see that all hazards risk and resilience concepts are incorporated into investment and construction decisions?

H1N1 Lessons Learned
• While H1N1 remains classified by the WHO as Phase 6 Pandemic and concerns remain about a possible resurgence of outbreaks here in the US in the Fall, what are some of the lessons learned and shortcomings you saw in how the Department and country dealt with this situation?

Personnel
• A number of key positions at DHS remain unfilled including the TSA Administrator, Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, Under Secretary for Customs & Border Protection. Can you describe the challenge that you have had to fill these important positions?

United We Serve Campaign / CERT Teams and Community Preparedness Grants
• You, along with a number of the DHS and other Administration leaders, have been quite actively promoting the President’s United We Serve Campaign. With the admonitions that FEMA Administrator, Craig Fugate has made in some of his recent remarks about improving the engagement and education of the public in disaster planning and response and your own encouragement of families and citizens to make themselves better prepared, do you seen an increase in grant funding and other resources being made available to CERT Programs and other community preparedness initiatives so as to enhance state, local and tribal government resilience?

Posted in Border Security, Counterfeit & IPR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Promoting Travel and Costing Americans Time and Money

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

The Senate has begun consideration of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (S.1023) — a bill which, on its face, would seem to have a good purpose: to provide information to foreign travelers and encourage travel and tourism to the United States. Who could possibly be against that idea?

Nobody it seems – the bill has 47 sponsors in the Senate and looks like one of those bills that will eventually pass by voice vote.

It shouldn’t.

In its current form, the proposed law ought to be rejected. Not because the objects of the law are bad; they aren’t. But the way that the law proposes to achieve them will hurt every American who travels to Europe.

The bill creates a new non-profit corporation for the promotion of travel. So far, so good. It’s useful to have a forum in which the American travel industry bands together and promotes its product overseas. We might ask why the travel industry should get that sort of benefit from the government, but at a time when the government is practically in the business of selling American cars direct to consumers, that just quibble. And if that were all this was – a non-profit funded by the industry for its own benefit — nobody would be writing blog posts about it.

The problem is that the non-profit corporation will not be exclusively self-funded. Instead it will partially rely on a new tax.

Now fortunately (or so you would think), it isn’t a tax on Americans. It’s a tax on the foreigners who come to the United States using something called the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The VWP allows foreigners to come here without getting a visa. Instead, all they have to do is fill out an on-line application through a system known as the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (or ESTA). Under the law if they complete an ESTA application and no problems are found they may travel to the United States with nothing more than a passport and a plane ticket – just like Americans today can travel to Europe for vacation. No visa needed. No long lines to wait in at the embassy.

And …. NO FEE. Today ESTA is free to VWP participants. S.1023 will change that and charge all ESTA users $10 per authorization. The fee won’t go to defray ESTA expenses, but rather it will go to fund the non-profit travel promotion corporation.

And what’s so bad about that? If it ended there, nothing. But it won’t end there. The European Union has said that if the United States charges a fee for ESTA, then in its view ESTA will become, in effect, just like a visa program — a fee, after all, is one of the ways you actually recognize a visa program.

And if ESTA becomes a visa program, the EU has threatened to impose a visa program on Americans travelling to Europe. And it won’t be the “visa-lite” program that ESTA is. Oh no. The EU doesn’t have ESTA yet, so the visa program they are thinking of is the old-fashioned one – fees, long lines, days of delay, the whole nine yards.

So that’s the question – in order to help the US travel industry promote American travel, should we use the federal government to tax Europeans traveling to America? Does it matter if in doing so we will create a sore point with our trans-Atlantic partners? Does it matter if in doing so the end result will be that Americans traveling to Europe will have to go to the time and inconvenience of getting a European visa?

The right answer, of course, is not to kill the bill – but rather to fix it. As a self-funded institution, the corporation is just fine. It just shouldn’t meet its funding needs through the ESTA program tax, which is likely to cause problems for the travelling American public.

Posted in Immigration & Visa Policy, International | Comments

Targeting Taliban’s Bankroll

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Armen Keteyian of CBS News did a piece on the intersection of terror finance with international drug trade. Only just recently, the DEA put more agents on the ground in war zones to crack down on the funneling of drug money to key terrorist operatives.

Targeting Taliban’s Bankroll

The U.S. military tried to cut the Taliban’s money supply by destroying Afghanistan’s poppy fields. Now the U.S is targeting heroin traffickers who bankroll the Taliban. Armen Keteyian reports.

Posted in Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Management & Administration, Narcotics, Smuggling, Terror Finance, counterterrorism | Comments

TSA: New Millimeter Wave Technology

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Recently, I spoke with Francis Rose on Federal News Radio’s In Depth With Francis Rose, to discuss TSA’s new use of millimeter wave technology for the American rail system. Millimeter wave technology is a creative solution to keeping people safe with little to no distruption to travelers.

Listen to the interview here.

TSA: New Millimeter Wave Technology

The old excuse “this is how we’ve always done it” doesn’t apply to one agency, says Wendell Shingler, former Executive Director of the National Incident Response Unit at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and former Director of the Federal Protective Services. He believes the Transportation Security Administration’s passive screening equipment that uses millimeter wave technology is a sign the agency is trying to think in new ways. Mr. Shingler told me why he thinks so, and offered some background on TSA’s pilot program.

Read my recent blog post on the use of the new technology here.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Critical Infrastructure, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Why the NAO became DOA

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

It’s official – the National Applications Office (NAO) is DOA. Yesterday’s official announcement by DHS put the period on the end of a sentence that a lot of us have seen written for some time. The disappointing part of this entire affair is that Sec. Napolitano made the only decision she could given the circumstances that were handed to her.

The NAO and what it could do truly had the potential to be a game-changer for DHS and the entire homeland security community for a number of very positive and Constitutional reasons, but its ham-handed development and subsequent execution doomed it from the start.

Why?

Here are four reasons: Politics; Communications Failure; Lack of Stakeholders; and Culture.

Politics: When it was first introduced in 2007, the architects of NAO stated it would be providing imagery and related products “from government-owned, space-based assets for domestic law enforcement purposes.”

To utter these words in a post-Patriot Act and toxic political environment of late 2007 and Election-year 2008, especially in the wake of reports of surveillance and interrogation abuses was tantamount to hanging the world’s biggest ”Kick Me” sandwich board sign over your body and putting yourself between two chorus lines of Rockettes.

There was absolutely no political sensitivity as to what these words said or how they would be translated and perceived by either political party or the public at large. As such, critics, bloggers, civil libertarians, politicians, conspiracy theorists and more were quick to label the NAO and its use of government owned, space-based assets as a “double-plus good” tool of the black-van driving 1984 Orwellian cadre that they saw running intelligence programs at DHS and other intelligence agencies. The NAO then became a political football that could be easily tossed about by critics of the Bush Administration to highlight the “abuses” they saw allowed under their leadership.

The NAO architects didn’t help themselves either by slow-rolling Congressional critics, specifically, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) in promptly and effectively responding to their concerns about the NAO. The quickest way to annoy any Member of Congress is to appear to ignore them, blow them off or move forward on a program even after they’ve gone on the record as saying, “NO WAY!” The NAO did all three.

Communications Failure: There is a simple rule in sales – if you want a customer to buy something, you have to convince them what you offer is worth their money. The NAO never did that. When it came to selling the NAO, their failure to effectively communicate only complemented their politically tone-deaf tin-ear.

Stating you are going to use “government owned, space-based assets for domestic law-enforcement purposes” is about as popular as inviting a family of skunks to a garden wedding in June. Nobody wants you!

I am amazed that when the words were first used to describe the purpose of the NAO that someone didn’t stop and say, “Hey guys. Wait a minute. Are you sure that’s a smart thing to say?”

Obviously they didn’t because what went out to describe the NAO went out without fully grasping what was being said or how it would be heard.

If the NAO’s architects had come out and said, “We want to use government owned, space-based assets to enhance federal, state, local and tribal emergency planning, preparedness and response efforts for all hazards,” there is a very good chance that the NAO might still be alive today.

They didn’t, and you can see the results.

Instead of embracing a bigger, more holistic picture of the NAO’s potential contributions, its architects embraced a very narrow and highly sensitive area (law enforcement purposes) that scared the hell out of its potential customers (state, local and tribal governments) and the very citizens that NAO sought to protect and serve.

Not until the incoming salvos and appropriately tough questions from the Congress, civil liberties groups and others about the NAO came in, was their mention of hurricane and other all-hazard preparedness that the office could contribute.

Instead the NAO messengers decided to lead with the “domestic law enforcement” line in their initial messaging and as a result they could never recover from what was a politically insensitive and untenable mission statement.

Remember the adage, “You only get one chance to make a first impression?” This case proves it again.

Another communications failure was DHS’ unwillingness to be proactive about the NAO and what it could do. I know of several invitations that went to DHS to come out and speak about the NAO; its value and what it could. All were turned down.

If you won’t come out and proactively speak (sell) or publicly defend a program or its intent, you cede the arena of debate and ideas to your critics. As such their voices and perspective are the only ones that are heard.

Additionally if you are one of those persons or groups on the sidelines who believed in the NAO and its purpose why would you put yourself out there to defend and champion something that DHS seemed unwilling to proactively do themselves?

Lack of Stakeholders: One of the primary reasons an idea, program or cause wins in Washington or anywhere is because of those persons and groups who come together to champion it. We see it daily in the health care debate that is going on right now. People with similar beliefs come together to champion something they believe and want to make happen.

Can you name any stakeholder group that championed for the NAO?

I know there were intelligence personnel (current and retired) that believed in the NAO, but when it came to identifying stakeholder groups from trade associations, professional societies and other like-minded advocacy groups that were willing to voice their support for it, the silence on the NAO was deafeningly silent.

In looking back over the NAO history, there seemed no overt effort to develop such stakeholders who could engage in the battle of ideas about the office’s value or help cultivate support for it. If you don’t have these stakeholders, the only voices – those of your critics (informed and uninformed) are the only voices that are heard.

The critics of the NAO made their voices (both sound and unsound) heard at decibel blasting volumes. In a politically charged environment, it is these voices that make the quotable quotes that the media and blogosphere gobble up and perpetuate time and again. That makes them the defacto winner whether they are right on an issue or not.

Having previously worked with a number of companies and personnel in the geospatial industry that serve both private sector as well as public sector customers (including the intelligence and military communities), I know they were not approached to weigh in on supporting the NAO. If they had engaged them I know for a fact a number of them would have said to the NAO architects, “Hey guys. Wait a minute. This office can serve a broader and better purpose than just law enforcement purposes. We should know because we serve those interests every day.”

Take a look at the work that Digital Globe and GeoEye do. Take a look at Google Earth and Virtual Alabama. These companies and products as well as others are already finding acceptance by the American public in lots of ways and rather than learn from those lessons, the NAO architects decided to take the one path, laden with political land mines and skip all the way down it.

When DHS uttered its initial messaging of using government-owned, space-based assets for law enforcement purposes and it caused an uproar, these companies as well as the prospective consumers and users of NAO products and services (state, local and tribal governments), backed away entirely from wanting anything to do with the NAO.

All you have to do is read the letter from LAPD Chief, William Bratton and Major Police Chiefs Association about the NAO to see their unwillingness to embrace the NAO as it was formed. Besides being completely unengaged in the NAO’s formation, these law enforcement stakeholders were not about to volunteer to stand in-front of firing squad of politicians, critics, bloggers, media and others to defend a program or office that would only cause them further headaches and angst for the baggage it brought with it. They have enough problems and aren’t looking for more.

Culture: I do not doubt for an instant the patriotism or contributions of the often unappreciated and under-acknowledged service of anyone at DHS now or previously. All of them serve in difficult situations in protecting what we all hold dear as a nation. They are all patriots looking to do what they can to secure the homeland but in serving that mission there must also be a culture awareness of the need to look, listen, learn and engage from those communities outside of your traditional operational environments when forming any program or activity that serves interests outside of your own.

In the intelligence community it has been the long-held cultural norm to restrict or limit what information is shared with other parties. That is more than understandable for security reasons but as a result, operational (cultural) silos are formed that often prevent information sharing and collaboration with parties outside of that silo. We know today this is one of the failures that allowed the 9/11 attackers to go unnoticed until it was too late. Since that day, tremendous changes and reforms have occurred in the intelligence and law-enforcement communities and as a result and information sharing between these parties has improved dramatically.

Beyond the information sharing though is the need to improve how efforts like the NAO are designed, developed and executed. We can not expect programs or efforts developed in insular silos to effectively serve their mission. Based upon the forensics of the NAO debacle, we have a pretty good idea that it was formed in a silo and as result, its overall lack of acceptance and subsequent termination was a foregone conclusion.

That’s the shame of this entire experience. The technologies, products and services that could come from an NAO-type of office could be a tremendous asset to the homeland mission in a multitude of areas that go far beyond “domestic law-enforcement purposes.”

God knows there are public and private sector members and average American citizens who could have benefited from them. If given the chance, a number of them would have even been willing to publicly support efforts to create them. That won’t happen now, at least not under a name such as NAO.

With any luck leadership at DHS will learn from this and develop an office or a program in the future that is cognizant of the politics of the day; knows how to communicate and cultivates stakeholders along the way to serve the homeland mission that we need fulfilled.

Those are parts that were forgotten about when the NAO was formed and with any luck DHS won’t forget about them again any time soon.

Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Registered Traveler – An Idea Before Its Time?

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

Supporters of a robust risk management agenda for the Transportation Security Administration received the bad news that Verified Identity Pass, the company that operates the CLEAR Registered Traveler program, abruptly ceased operations yesterday. VIP cited a lack of funding from its investors for the decision.

Whether Registered Traveler can continue without its primary vendor remains to be seen. But any company or association attempting to implement Registered Traveler will face an uphill climb with a skeptical TSA which sees Registered Traveler as a distraction from its primary security missions, and with airline opposition, which views Registered Traveler as a competitor to its lucrative amenity programs.

TSA initially supported Registered Traveler during the Tom Ridge era at DHS, as a method to target security resources on less-known travelers and to enable low-risk frequent travelers a consistent and fast security review. However, TSA washed its hands of RT in 2008, arguing it could never ensure that an unknown “clean skin” terrorist could exploit any security protocol change, leaving Registered Traveler as only a fast-lane program. Despite considerable public appetite for the program with over 200,000 loyal subscribers, operations at over 20 airports, and some airline partnerships, investors in Registered Traveler apparently saw the lack of TSA support as a reason to place their monetary bets elsewhere.

So unless another Registered Traveler vendor somehow picks up the elaborate enrollment and facilitation infrastructure, starting this morning, it looks like we are in for a system for a while where every traveler will get the same security screening, even if they are willing to pay for a background check and biometric verification, and for the TSA resources necessary to run their checkpoints. Time will tell whether TSA’s caution was justified, or whether RT was just an idea before its time.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Counterfeit & IPR | Comments

Interagency Agreement Signals Progress in the “War on Drugs”

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

In retirement, I can still refer to “The War on Drugs” as “The War on Drugs,” a phrase not popular with the current administration. Despite what you want to call it, this administration made progress last week in narcotics enforcement when an inter-agency agreement was signed between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to substantially increase the number of ICE Special Agents with Title 21 authority. This puts an end to years-long tension between the two federal law enforcement agencies regarding how many, and under what circumstances, ICE agents could investigate narcotics cases.

The agreement sends a clear message to both agencies and will enhance morale at ICE, an agency with a diverse investigative portfolio that includes not only narcotics enforcement, but financial crimes, national security, immigration enforcement, IPR, cyber crime, child ponography, and beyond. It will increase the exchange of information and intelligence between the agencies as ICE agents will (for the first time) fully participate in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Fusion Center.

Title 21 authority has long been a “point of contention” between the two agencies as both attempted to “protect their turf.” The ability to investigate “narcotics crimes” (known a Title 21) rests with the Drug Enforcement Administration, part of the Justice Department. The Attorney General has granted ICE the authority to conduct Title 21 investigations through cross-designation. Historically Justice/DEA has cross-designated only about 1500 ICE agents with Title 21 authority; under the new agreement, this number that will increase significantly.

Title 21 authority aside, both agencies must continue to work together on narcotics investigations. As the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) for ICE in New York City a few years ago, I was very fortunate to work with DEA SACs in New York City that welcomed and embraced ICE’s participation in international narcotics investigations. I cannot recall a single narcotics case that was negatively impacted by the requirement to have an ICE agent cross-designated with Title 21 authority. Simply, if we needed the authority, we requested it from DEA, and closely coordinated the subsequent investigation with DEA.

It never became an issue because we worked together; not only did DEA gladly cooperate with ICE but ICE agents took every effort to coordinate with DEA and share critical information from such investigations. This is the ideal partnership, where both sides give a little and get something in return, like any good partnership. The future success of narcotics enforcement in the U.S. will depend on that continued partnership.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Critical Infrastructure, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

The Importance of a Good COOP Plan

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

As we approach the many threats that populate the contemporary landscape, every business needs a Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan. The various parts of the Government (Federal, State, Local, Tribal) working on this, but are mixed in this area. Most businesses are abysmal. If our company doesn’t have a COOP plan, you are failing them.

This is not just about terrorism, although that is clearly an issue, but about pandemics, floods, hurricanes, fires, and industrial accidents. Any of these things can adversely affect your ability to conduct business in the way you normally do it. To ensure you are ready, you need a COOP plan, you need to teach it, you need to exercise it, and you need to keep it updated.

Here are some key components. The company must look at the possible threats, and see what applies (use your imagination, and think worst case); from that analysis, you can begin to plan. Next you must decide how you chose to address a COOP situation. Will you establish alternative sites (one or several), or will you try to have your workforce operate remotely (from home or their own alternatives). Social distancing is a key issue, and one you can practice by telecommuting. Next, you need a plan for information distribution and accountability. This is not optional, and if you do not have it now, you are well behind the power curve. Given the plethora or communications means even small firms now have available, there is no excuse for failing to get the word out, and for not keeping track of your people.

You must define what you consider essential functions for your business, and what essential / vital records are. These will be the first things which you must “backup” within our COOP planning Will you have a “mirror site” to which your electronic information and support functions will shift in an emergency, or will the boss pick up a cardboard box as he departs? How are the families of your work force addressed? Do you simply tell your folks to handle it, or is there a uniform policy?

Once you have figured all these thorny issue into a plan, you have to publish it, and conduct classes on how to use all the various components. This must have support and emphasis from the highest levels of the organization. After everyone is trained, it must be exercised. This goes well beyond discussions, to actually moving and operating under COOP like conditions. It is only in that way will you find flaws in the plan.

COOP is a grossly over looked area. At best it gets lip service from most organizations. Even post – 9/11, and post KATRINA, we all prefer to assume it “will never happen to us”. That is a poor assumption. If you don’t know how to plan for COOP, get help, but you need to do it now.

Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

What must Pittsburgh learn from Tehran

Saturday, June 20th, 2009

Tehran is currently running a master class in how not to manage a disaffected crowd; Pittsburgh would do well to learn from Tehran’s mistakes. Many will reject this, on the grounds that law enforcement in the West would never treat a crowd as the Iranian security forces, and particularly the baseej, have done. However, the indiscriminate use of force by police officers at incidents like the most recent RNC, the Poll Tax Riots in London or during the incident in Boston that cost Victoria Snedgrove her life, would suggest otherwise.

The crowds in Tehran turned out to protest the election result. As a group they were discontent and angry, but generally not inclined to violence. Aggressive policing, including the indiscriminate use of batons, riding motorcycles into the crowds and firing CS gas into the crowds; CS is commonly used among US law enforcement in crowd control situations, particularly those that they expect to turn violent. Tehran reinforces the fact that such action is more likely to make the crowd violent. In some instances this use of CS gas turned the crowd against the police; the Iranian police only have themselves to blame for the violence that ensued. The argument that the crowd was completely predisposed towards violence is always a specious one; normally the violent element will only make up 2-5%, and they will try to get the police to over-react against everyone. That a number of policemen in Tehran were captured by the crowd, but then protected by members of the crowd from harm, demonstrate the fallacy of the argument that the crowd simply wanted to cause violence and destruction.

In Pittsburgh there will be anarchist/extreme left wing groups (A/ELWs) determined on violence as a form of getting their message across. Those who are intent on violence and vandalism deserve to be arrested and punished to the full extent of the law. The lesson that the Pittsburgh police and associated law enforcement agencies must learn from Tehran is that only controlled force can be used, and it must only be used against individuals who are a proven ongoing threat. These capabilities at the tactical level must be supported by integrated command and control functions that understand their tactical capabilities and are practiced in deploying them.

There aren’t a lot of police officers in Pittsburgh, nor in the surrounding areas. The National Guard are likely to be on stand-by at least. The baseej, as a militia, have proven how not to provide elements of the military into supporting the police. There are very effective models for this integration, such as that applied in Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’. Because of the size of the potential challenge facing the Pittsburgh PD, the National Guard should not only be prepared to deploy in support of the G20 effort, but should be fully trained and equipped to support the police if required. This may not be desireable, but having reserves in depth is the only sensible course of action in this kind of instance.

Tehran has proven how not to police crowd activity; Pittsburgh now has 3 months to analyse and learn a range of lessons, and integrate them into their plan.

Sam Rosenfeld is the Chairman of the Densus Group, a firm that provides specialist advice, consulting and training on use of force and intelligence matters that include Public Order and Crowd Control. The Densus Threat Centre focuses on protestor related threats, and publishes the Demonstration Report and Threat Analysis on a bi-weekly basis to law enforcement and concerned organizations. The DTC can be contacted at demonstratorthreat@densusgroup.com.

Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, counterterrorism | Comments

TSA To Help Monitor Rail System

Saturday, June 20th, 2009

It is great to see that the continued myth that the government is set in its ways does not apply to TSA. Securing one of our old faithful resources, our rail system, is clearly high on the TSA to do list. Further, it is great to see the government using state of the art equipment to secure one of our nation’s oldest forms of transportation. In an effort to detect explosives while not slowing down some of our last minute commuters, TSA has installed passive screening equipment that uses millimeter wave technology to rapidly look for explosives in baggage and on people while they are in full stride.

The equipment was installed in the PATH mass transit rail lines between NY and NJ. The rail lines support hundreds of thousands of commuters every day. This pilot test will evaluate the effectiveness of the equipment to ensure the safety of the rail lines and passengers all without slowing anyone down.

Clearly, this is the best of all worlds in my opinion. As I have said many times, our rail system is the over looked diamond that could answer so many of our nation’s problems. Protecting it is a must and I applaud TSA for being willing to try all new things to ensure that mission.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Management & Administration, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Recap of the Symantec Symposium

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

This week, I attended the Symantec Cyber Symposium. It was a well organized and first class event. At a time when there is a bit of a glut of cyber events, this one stood out.

Senator Warner Surprises at Symantec Symposium

The opening keynote address at the June 16th Symantec Cyber Symposium was given by freshman Senator Mark Warner (D-VA). My expectations were frankly not high, but I was pleasantly surprised. I did not know that before going into politics, Warner was one of the co-founders of Nextel. He was actually quite comfortable addressing a very competent tech audience, and set a great tone for the event.

He began by noting that politics aside, the Obama Administration had set a huge message to the country and the world about the importance of technology. They did this by the significant appointments they have made (CTO, CIO, and soon coming Cyber Coordinator), and the release of the new Cyber report with a full Presidential address. Warner also said that as the Governor of Virginia, he had learned that the only way to effect change across multiple government organizations was by technology, procurement, and HR. So, Obama was tackling the first of those legs.

Warner also pointed out the cyber security had three key embedded issues that must be wrestled to completion. The first is the development of real public / private partnerships. This must go beyond symbolism and advice and achieve real collaboration. The second is information sharing. He warned that if the Cyber Coordinator gets too wrapped up in the classified NSC (he meant NSS) environment, it would fail. Lastly he said that the President must deal with Identity Validation, and that he would do so. Recognizing that this was a third rail issue for many, he said it just had to be done, or we would never achieve security. He also warned that we could do it now, with reasoned debate, or do it after an “event” when there would be a rush to do “something” and emotions would trump reason.

He ended with short comments on the need for Smart Grids to improve our energy efficiency, and for a serious upgrade of Heath Care IT.

Security Standards Panel at Symantec

The 16 June Symantec Cyber Symposium began its panel discussions with a very interesting topic which concerns many in the Private sector; Standards. The panelists were Eric Hopkins of the Senate HLS & Gov’t Affairs Committee, Ron Ross of NIST, and Tony Sager of NSA. Together they gave an excellent presentation.

Hopkins led off with a quick notation about the new FISMA reform bill. He said that they were working to synchronize the numerous cyber related bills be put forth right now, and the needed improvements for FISMA. He said that it would most assuredly morph into a comprehensive Cyber Bill.

Ross’s comments were more wide ranging. He reminded the audience that the threats were growing in number, sophistication, and power, and that they were aimed at the private sector as much as the government. He also said that NIST, DoD, and the IC were collaborating on an effort to collapse the different federal security standards to make them all uniform and equal. He likened it to a Goldwater – Nichols Act for standards. Eventually they will also have a Certification &Accreditation process that is agile and updated continuously, rather that every three years as it is now. He noted that the old (present) methodology of “get penetrated then patch it” was no longer acceptable. We have to build in both security and privacy protections to enterprise architecture, or we will never get ahead of the threats.

Sager was direct and to the point. He said that we could build the most secure systems in the world, but they would end up being completely without functionality. That would not do today. He also categorically stated that we are never going back to the world of “US Only Technology”. Those thinking along that line should drop it.

The last comments were actually not directly tech related, and that is telling. Ross said that it is not just a matter of good secure technology, but that it was education/training, procedures, and leadership that would get us through this. Sager added that a “well managed network was a tough target”, and that we should have that as a goal today.

The Future of the CNCI

The final panel of the Symantec Cyber Symposium looked at the future of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Their conclusion was that the CNCI was not comprehensive enough, and did not focus nationally. The panel had two folks presently in Govt (Susan Alexander, OSD, ASD-NII, and Bill Vajda, Joint Interagency Cybersecurity Task Force), one on the way back into Govt (Bruce McConnell soon to be counselor for DHS), and one former (Bill Crowell, former Dep Dir, NSA).

Alexander discussed the desire of DoD to make this a year of Leap Ahead technology. Crowell noted that while productivity had increased by more than 50% due to digital capabilities, “we are completely dependant on a system that was never meant to be secure.” McConnell spoke next and emphasized that we were beginning a migration from CNCI toward the new policy outlined in the recently released 60 day Review Study. He said that any new policy must define roles, must develop agreed upon rules, and must inject the realism of risk management into the debate. Vajda made the point that the CNCI really had not been national, but stayed exclusively federal in orientation. That needed to be changed with the new policy.

Questions lead them to state that we would probably keep the heavy R&D emphasis of CNCI, but that the Einstein program would eventually be dropped due to its complexity. All emphasized the need for education and increased public awareness. No one had a good answer for how we would pursue cyber security in the international realm. One suggestion was the establishment of a US Cyber Representative modeled on the US Trade Rep. That way they would be part of the Executive Office of the President, but not in the White House. All seemed concerned that the new Cyber Coordinator not develop an operational focus as that was inappropriate inside the WH.

The final word came that we needed to accept that we needed to do “trusted transactions on untrustworthy networks”. We were simply not going to eliminate the doubts in many elements of the present networks.

Posted in Counterfeit & IPR, Cyber Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Practice Makes Perfect

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

In short, the best made plans are only as good as they are exercised in advance of an emergency. I have known people and organizations that have written beautiful plans for every situation that they could possibly think of. I will also admit that they often looked very pretty in their matching binders displayed on a new bookcase. I have to commend the effort, however, all the pretty books of well written plans do not mean that you are prepared to respond or operate during and after an emergency. I think we have seen that knowing what is in those plans and performing under less than ideal situations is the real proof of our preparedness. We have all seen this, and know what it is like when plans do not perform under less than ideal situations. This is the proof of preparedness.

On June 17, 2009, under the control of DHS, all government agencies exercised their Continuity of Operations plans (COOP), and I have to admit I miss those days of preparing for the worse. Testing yourself to see if your plans were successful, watching your alternate facilities actually came on line and never skipping a beat, so that the nation and government are without your service.

We live in a new world- where a trip around the world is measured in hours and not months. We now have enemies that in the not-too-distant past were no real threat simply because they could not get to us. Even if DHS, DOJ and all the cops in the country had all the money and equipment they needed with the mission of making us 100% secure, it would still be impossible. Nevermind the fact that this is something we wouldn’t really want because we as a nation truly enjoy our freedoms. The attempt at total security would slow, reduce and in many ways stop some of the freedoms that we take for granted. Thus DHS and the government is charged with striking a delicate balance. Be as secure as we can be but without reducing the freedoms that this nation was founded upon.

To this point, our government cannot put a “closed” sign on the door when things do go bump in the night. The people and the plans must be prepared to respond and able to continue their operations. To ensure that, bright people write great plans, and despite already heavy workloads, managers shift gears for a period of time and practice those plans because when things do go bump, there is no time to find that page in the plan on the bookcase and do what it says. This is a situation where you have to know what to do and not even have to think about – the same way we tie our shoes everyday. Not knowing what to do can cause harm to our nation’s way of life, and even death. We have seen this happen and we cannot let it happen again.
So as a concerned citizen, and no longer the guy that has to know the plan, I thank the men and women of DHS, and every agency that spent the time ensuring that our way of life would not change the when things go bump in the night.

I must also say that in my new life after federal service, I have had the opportunity to work with a number of companies that are taking planning and exercises to heart so they are prepared the next time a problem strikes home. I have enjoyed helping them because although this effort does not generate profits up front, it will when disaster hits again. One company has taken it so seriously that based on their level of preparedness, they have actually drastically reduced their insurance costs. I cannot commend them enough because they are so prepared they will not be expecting Uncle Sam to come to their rescue, they will be knocking on Uncle Sam’s door and saying how can we help.

Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

Tijuana’s Drug War

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Recently, I spoke with CBC’s “The National” regarding the escalating drug war along the U.S.-Mexico border. While it has not reached such a grave point yet, Mexico could realistically become a failed nacro-state if it does not get control of the violence in its country. The United States, for its own security, should help.

Check out the special report:

CBC News: The National, “Tijana’s Drug War’

When police cracked down on Tijuana’s Arellano Felix cartel, it unleashed a violent turf war between upstart drug gangs that neither the police nor the military can control.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Counterfeit & IPR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

A Foiled Terrorist Plot, Two Shootings and a Worldwide Pandemic – Can You Hear Me Now?

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Over the past two months alone, the nation has witnessed an array of threats that could undermine businesses caught off-guard.

Four convicts, all radical Islamists, were caught planning to blow up two Bronx synagogues and shoot military planes out of the sky. Another American-born Islamic extremist was charged in a bloody rampage outside an Arkansas military recruiting station. A white supremacist unleashed an attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum, killing a guard. And, the World Health Organization declared an N1H1 Pandemic.

These events are just the latest examples of why companies need a robust program to handle all hazards — from a single violent terrorist act to a pandemic. A Business Continuity Program, as we call it in the lexicon of homeland security, is no longer a “nice to have” option. It is a “must have” reality.

In April, the WHO announced the emergence of a new contagious and spreading influenza virus that had not previously been circulated in humans — the N1H1 strain of a virus known commonly as the “swine flu.” On June 11, 2009, the WHO raised the level of the influenza alert from phase 5 to phase 6. Phase 6, the pandemic phase, is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region in addition to the human to human spread of the virus into at least two countries in any one WHO region. Designation of Phase 6 status indicates that a global pandemic is under way.

At this time, nearly 30,000 cases of swine flu have been reported in 74 countries. There have been 17,000 reported cases in the United States. The Center for Disease Control is urging businesses to re-examine and modify their continuity programs to adequately prepare for the impending pandemic. The CDC is also recommending that companies keep regular contact with local and state representatives, establish procedures to keep sick employees away from well employees and re-assess supply-chain security and resiliency.

A pandemic presents unique circumstances. That means certain fundamental precepts of business continuity planning do not apply.

For instance, business continuity planning generally assumes that an entity will be back to business as usual in 30 days or less. Practically speaking a major disruption lasting more than a few days would cause significant harm to most companies — reputation damage, lost sales, consequential damages, drop in stock price, lawsuits, etc. A pandemic is not a discrete event; it can last as long as 18 months. The CDC estimates that companies should assume a 40% absenteeism rate during this time. This will create a cascading effect within the public and private sectors. The number one question: who will carryout mission critical functions? Remedies will not be immediately available and anti-virals such as TAMIFLU will be in limited supply. A pandemic would likely affect all aspects of our society. Plans need to be put in place to prevent mass panic in such situations.

Traditionally, after an “event,” the focus shifts from the “affected” site to the “unaffected” site to ensure that business resumes as quickly as possible. However, in the context of a pandemic, a company may not have an “unaffected site.” A pandemic plan must include provisions for social distancing and robust teleworking strategies — you do not want to send your officers and key employees to an alternate site because one or more may have been exposed to the virus but not yet symptomatic.

A company should institute a plan to prepare its workforce for a seamless transition once a pandemic hits. Administrative controls should be instituted that educate and train employees and create a hierarchy of essential positions to ensure those positions are consistently filled. Basic environmental controls should be implemented such as encouraging the use of hand sanitizers and personal protective equipment. Finally, companies should be informed and supply vaccinations to their employees as they become available. These measures are just a few examples of the many things that should be included in an effective plan.

Modifying or developing a business continuity program for an upcoming pandemic will make organizations and companies more resilient in the event of any emergency situation. A company that is well prepared will suffer minimal impact and quickly recover from an emergency situation. Those companies who are poorly prepared face the potential for long term damage to strategic interests, customer relations, brand reputation, and employee commitment.

For most people, not a day goes by without saying or hearing someone say while on a cell phone: “Can you hear me now, can you hear me, how about now?”

In just the past two months, the United States was tested by threats to the safety and health of its population and the next H1N1 wave is expected to hit us in September.

The public and private sectors must use the rest of the summer to ensure that they are fully prepared to deal with the H1N1 pandemic while at the same time continue to prepare for and guard against all hazards. Unlike using a cell phone where you can move into another zone or call back to get better reception, there is no safe zone in which you can go to ensure that you are not affected by a pandemic.

Can you hear me now?

Scott Louis Weber is a partner at the law firm Patton Boggs LLP and is the former Senior Counselor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Private and Physical Security | Comments

Best Quote about Iranian Protests

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

As the world continues to watch the unfolding situation in Iran and the massive protests over the disputed election results, the best quote about what is happening there was captured by Twitter and reported in today’s New York Times,

“Ahmadinejad called us Dust, we showed him a sandstorm.”

Posted in Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

Not Time for Congress to Waiver

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

Senator Diane Feinstein hates it. FBI Director Robert Mueller raised red flags in Congressional testimony and a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations last February. What to do about the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) that allows citizens from the US and other selected countries to visit one another for up to 90 days for business or tourist travel without a visa? The answer, according a recent study released by The Heritage Foundation, is to continue to expand the program. The report’s findings are based on a detailed assessment of reforms implemented since 9/11, as well as the economic and public diplomacy aspects of the program.

“Visa Waiver Program: A Plan to Build on Success,” also recommends the next steps in the VWP based on an evaluation of current and future threats, an assessment of ongoing government programs, and an analysis of trends in trade and international travel. The critical necessary steps the task force identified are: (1) Congress should transfer permanent waiver authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and decouple VWP from the biometric air-exit mandate, a mandate that would require DHS to biometrically track the exit of foreign passengers leaving the United States by air, so that the current DHS visa waiver authority does not expire should DHS not deploy air exit by July 1, 2009. (2) Congress should reiterate that long-time VWP member countries, just like new members, must enter into bilateral agreements to implement post-9/11 VWP security requirements. (3) Congress and DHS should work together to ensure that the biennial security reviews of VWP member countries are a meaningful exercise. (4) Congress should ensure that the new Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is user-friendly through multiple-language availability and reliance on quality databases.

The report written based on the rigorous analysis of lessons learned from the past few years by a non-partisan, independent task force of scholars, researchers, and former government officials, concludes that “next steps” are vital for enhancing the security of the United States and its international partners, spurring economic growth, improving protection of individual rights and privacy, and burnishing America’s reputation as a welcoming and confident member of the community of free nations that embraces engagement between its citizens and those of its friends and allies around the world.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, counterterrorism | Comments

DHS Awards Millions for “In-Line” Baggage Screening

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano awarded $41 million in the last week for in-line baggage systems at airports in San Francisco and Philadelphia. These are dollars from the pot of $700 million allocated for airport in-line baggage systems in the stimulus bill — a.k.a. the American Investment and Recover Act.

These in-line baggage systems will improve security and convenience for the traveling public. Once you check your bag, it travels by conveyor belt directly to your plane, with much less of a risk of getting lost. It also is x-rayed by CT technology, a technology originally developed by the medical field that was converted for airport use and mandated for all checked luggage by Congress after 9/11.

Certainly these projects will bring needed infrastructure improvements to those major airports and put dollars to work in the community as well.

On another aviation security front, implementation of Secure Flight is moving along. All passengers that board airplanes are checked against the watch list that is maintained by the National Counter Terrorism Center. This process has been done by each individual airline checking their manifests against the watch list as provided by the Transportation Security Administration. Now the government is taking the process in-house. Passengers will need to provide three pieces of information when making a reservation: full name, date of birth and gender. The name needs to match the name as it appears on your government ID, as the New York Times pointed out last week, “no nicknames please.”

The government will keep this information for seven days for anyone that is not a watch list match. Once Secure Flight is fully implemented with all commercial airlines (late in 2010), the problem of misidentification that often delays and frustrates many people at the check-in counter will be virtually eliminated.

Technology and identity verification are two of many layers of security aimed at protecting aviation travel and both are direct recommendations of the 9/11 commission. These developments represent significant progress that should give all air travelers renewed confidence in the security system.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Management & Administration, Science & Technology | Comments