Homeland State & Local | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for the ‘Homeland State & Local’ Category

If the Cargo is not Screened, It Does Not Fly

Friday, July 30th, 2010

By Adam Salerno

Businesses Reengineering the Supply Chain for 100 Percent Screening

When Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the law mandated 100 Percent Screening of cargo onboard passenger aircraft “commensurate with checked baggage.” The deadline for that mandate is this weekend, August 1, 2010. The law seeks to ensure that all 20 million lbs. of cargo is screened in advance of flights for explosive detection prior to transport. As Douglas Brittin, the Director of Cargo Security at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says, “On August 1, if the cargo is not screened, it does not fly”.

In today’s economy, a vibrant supply chain can ensure that companies have instant access to overnight delivery to nearly 85 percent of the world’s population. While a changing world dictates new necessities to secure the supply chain, the need for expedited trade is an important priority that must be maintained. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognizes this fact, which is why we support a multi layered risk based approach to security which maximizes effectiveness and minimizes impact on businesses.

As with any unfunded mandate, the private sector was tasked with financing this effort and working with TSA to ensure this goal is accomplished. The cost has been dramatic. Most air carriers estimate their costs to be in the tens of millions of dollars range. That figure does not include delays or increasing lead time in the supply chain. To add complexity to the issue, the mandate also included all incoming cargo from around the globe be screened. In short, the law forced companies to completely reengineer their supply chain.

To push the mandate out of the confines of the airport, TSA developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). CCSP allows other trusted shippers in the supply chain to participate in the screening process, by securing their facilities, and the chain of custody from manufacturing to the belly of the aircraft. This too proved extremely costly for industry, but something that businesses in all modes of transportation have stepped up for.

Once the domestic deadline is hit, the focus will shift to international inbound flights. TSA needs to step forward at this point and begin to recognize foreign screening methods. Again, because of the nature of the unfunded mandate, it is clear that TSA has not had the resources to pursue this goal yet. However, programs like the German Aviation Security Program or the newly released European Union Framework 300, Rule 185 are comprehensive programs that mirror the basic fundamentals of the TSA program domestically. Working with the international community to ensure that our programs are mutually accepted is essential to ensure that businesses are not duplicating an already burdensome process.

It has been a long and costly road for industry, but with the August 1, 2010 deadline just days away, many are feeling cautiously optimistic that the deadline will be met. Thanks to the ingenuity of the freight forwarders, the airlines, and participants in CCSP, because without their time, effort, and serious investment, a dramatic halt of trade would have become reality. Their investment in security ensured that commerce will continue to move forward at the speed businesses rely on in the air environment.

Adam Salerno is a Senior Manager in the National Security and Emergency Preparedness Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He also manages the Chamber’s Global Supply Chain Security Working Group.

This piece was originally posted on The ChamberPost, the blog for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, International, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Lip Service and the National Infrastructure Bank

Monday, July 26th, 2010

In 2008, when the then Obama Campaign issued its proposed vision for homeland security, it impressed a lot of people when it described the creation of a national infrastructure bank. This federally chartered structure would fund critical projects around the country by making the necessary investments in roads, bridges, utilities and more.

While not a new or novel idea, the fact that the then-Senator from Illinois’ campaign put the concept into his stated policy positions showed everyone that his team had done their homework in embracing a new and proactive tool to address the need to repair and invest in America’s infrastructures. With interest from Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the concept of the infrastructure bank would allow for a more responsive and attentive means in deciding which structures received funding.

As recent history has shown, many infrastructure projects around the country are funded by an increasingly political appropriations process that seems to reward States and Congressional Districts based more upon political power than actual need. One needs only look at the projects funded by the annual Appropriations bills of the House and Senate, as well as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation, to see who the real winners are. As a result, some of the infamous projects (such as Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” and any number of construction projects in the late Senator Robert Byrd’s home of West Virginia) were able to flourish.

Upon their taking ownership of the White House in January 2009, the new Obama Administration followed through on its suggested campaign policy idea by stating that establishing a national infrastructure bank was one of their priorities. In fact, it was posted right off the White House website and was one of the first items detailed by the new Administration when they took over.

Once again their words offered hope of forthcoming “change.” Giving even more rise to these aspirations, in the weeks before taking the Oath of Office and in the weeks after, the President talked boldly about making investments in America’s infrastructure as a means of getting hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work.

With senior Congressional champions for the infrastructure bank in the wings, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), two of the most senior Members of Congress, were ready to work with the Administration to make it happen.

With the economy in dire shape, the new Obama Administration signed off on a Recovery Act package full of plenty of spending but none of the real change to how infrastructure was funded. To them, the money needed to get out to states and locals as soon as possible, so they used the same old means to fund projects around the country. Once again, the mechanisms of old that had funded projects for decades were once again flush with cash. In the year and a half since then, critics on both sides of the political aisle see a package that did not perform as promised or yield the results anyone wanted.

When the time came for the Obama Administration to put forward its own budget, much to the surprise of many, the national infrastructure bank was nowhere to be found. But there was still hope.

In a May 5 appearance at the Center for National Policy, Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), one of the most passionate Members of the House, encouraged the Administration to “act boldly” in fighting for the infrastructure bank. She asserted that throughout our country’s tough times, our Presidents think and act boldly, pointing to Lincoln’s decision to fund the railroad to reach the Pacific; FDR’s decision to build TVA and other projects during the Depression; Eisenhower’s decision to create a national interstate highway system; and Kennedy’s pledge to go to the moon. It was her hope that Obama would do the same when it came to creating the bank to invest in America’s national infrastructure.

It would seem that her hopes and those of many who want to see the national infrastructure bank become a reality are fleeting. Despite public pleas from some of the country’s leading voices on infrastructure investment issues (e.g., PA Gov. Ed Rendell, CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the US Chamber of Commerce and more), the infrastructure bank remains an idea whose time has not come.

Despite having windows of opportunity with the 2009 Recovery Act, last year’s budget cycle and even this year’s Appropriations process, the Obama Administration has failed to provide any leadership initiative or requisite details on making the bank a real 21st century tool for renewing and investing in America’s infrastructure. Even with Members of both political parties open to the idea and wanting to see how it would operate, the details for this concept seemed to be as vacuous as the leadership to make it happen.

This is a profound disappointment for those of us who champion critical infrastructure issues. It’s an even greater disappointment when you consider the state of our infrastructure across this country. The ASCE Report Cards and other studies have been blistering in their assessments of America’s infrastructure, but for reasons that defy any sense of logic, the Administration and Congress continue to fund the very mechanisms that have failed to improve our infrastructure standing for the past quarter century.

A famous quote attributed to Einstein comes to mind, where insanity is defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The Obama Administration has had three exceptional opportunities to start a new page in how we fund our country’s infrastructure needs. Instead, they keep singing the same tune as their predecessors, as opposed to being the professed “change” they promised to voters. That is a measure in which no one can take pride or claim accomplishment.

Maybe in the new Congress, they will fulfill Rep. DeLauro’s vision and “act boldly.” Maybe they will also find the courage to change their tune and deliver the real leadership and necessary details this initiative really needs. Until they do, the only accurate term to describe their position on the infrastructure bank is “lip service” and that is never in short supply in Washington. I guess some things never “change.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

Data Mining Tools for Law Enforcement?

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Recently, there’s been a trend toward some agencies purchasing new data mining tools for their needs at fusion centers. It is great to see this investment in technology, but watch out – many of these solutions don’t have any inherent method for capturing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Request for Service (RFS) data, which fusion centers use to track case management activities.

Also, these new data mining tools typically don’t communicate bi-directionally with Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS), nor can they communicate with National Data Exchange system (NDEX), the FBI’s information-sharing platform.

In fact, many of these software vendors don’t understand these systems need to comply with 28CFR23, the federal guideline that governs intelligence sharing.

Let’s review the four types of data that law enforcement officers encounter in their work:

1. Open-Source Data – Anything from the Internet, newspapers, other public sources [No prohibitions to sharing]

2. SARs – Information reported by citizens or police; no identifiable crime being committed but something’s suspicious [Can be shared between agencies under National SAR Initiative]

3. Investigative related – Evidence or information collected from a crime that has been committed with a goal to prosecute or prevent crimes [data sharing polices vary widely]

4. Intelligence – Important data in assessing threats to the community; proactive, strategic analysis conducted and patterns of activities are identified; resources focus on problem at hand, be it street gangs or organized crime [28CFR23 governs this type of data – If information rises to level of reasonable suspicion, then it can be entered into an intelligence system and shared with other agencies.]

All four types of data streams have separate and distinct laws governing what law enforcement can and cannot do with them.

Agencies want to ensure that they are holding data consistent with all the rules and regulations. But if the data mining technology companies have not considered any of the aforementioned issues, their tools are putting fusion centers at risk of violating statutes, laws and regulations.

One fusion center I use as an example vetted vendors with this criteria, and instead of settling for a one-size fits all intelligence analysis system, it selected one vendor for information/intelligence management and another for analyzing the information managed by the other system.

This is what should be happening more often – using the right tool for the right job.

Bottom line: Look for technology companies that know the compliance landscape.

Posted in Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland State & Local, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, counterterrorism | Comments

Did Richard Clarke’s Cyber Book Miss It?

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

You always feel a little shaky when you are planning on asserting that someone else is wrong. You feel more so when it is someone who is known as darn near a prophet in the particular field. However, no one has ever said that I was unwilling to express my opinions, so here goes.

Richard Clarke, former adviser to multiple presidents, the Cassandra who warned of a coming attack before 9/11, now has a hit book out on the threat of a coming cyber war, why we are unprepared for it and what we must do. The book, “Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to do About It” (written with Robert Knake), is now being widely read. One recent attendee at a major one-day cyber security symposium in Washington opined that it seemed every one of the speakers had referred to the book. I was there too, and this is a bit of hyperbole, but several did mention it. While not everyone agrees with Clarke, his opinions in the areas of infrastructure and cyber security cannot be easily discounted.

I will not attempt to do a complete review of the book, because several others have already done so and because so many people have already read it. I do want to point out, however, two areas where I think Clarke missed the mark in his thinking. I am also adding to the mix remarks and Q&A Clarke did at the very fine Aspen Security Forum at the end of June, which I had the pleasure of attending.

Truth in writing: these are two areas which might be considered my pet rocks. I have written and spoken on both, and while it is daunting to disagree with a “big guy,” in this case, I cannot be intellectually honest if I just let it go.

The first area is the usefulness of wide-spread cyber education and awareness for the American people. Clarke basically discounts this as a waste of time. He says the benefit of such an effort is about nil. You cannot properly train every grandmother and retired auto worker to be a computer scientist. Clearly he is right, but just as clearly (to me anyway), that is not the point.

Right now, experts say that nearly 80 percent of cyber incidents could be stopped if people would merely have good cyber personal hygiene. In other words, if they would understand where not to go, what in general not to open, why they should have protective software, and why it must be updated regularly, many would do it. Also, many of those same “everyman” folks could apply the same hygiene principles they would use at home in their jobs, thus giving us improvements on two fronts.

Look, we are obviously never going to stop the big sophisticated penetrations simply by intellectually arming the masses. The high-end 20 percent require a completely different approach. Nor are we going to get everyone who uses a computer to do all the “right things” anymore than we can get every driver to stop speeding or rolling through stop signs. People are people, and many will do unhelpful things, even if they are told how to avoid them. However, to give up on this front and dismiss all education and awareness efforts as of no use is intellectual conceit. We can better “arm” our population, and most of them will respond. Let’s close the doors we can and at least shrink the opportunities the bad guys have to attack. This is NOT a battle that will only be fought by our high-end “mounted cyber knights.” We have to engage all our citizen yeoman as well.

The second area Clarke dismisses is the possibility of a significant terrorist cyber event. He, like many other experts, seem to think that it is simply impossible for a terrorist organization to have the wherewithal to pull off a “real” cyber event. Well, if you define it as only so large as to be an all-out cyber war, his position has validity. If you think, as I have written and spoken about, that a terrorist attack could focus on a specific geographic and single sector target, it is indeed quite feasible.

Terrorists no longer have to develop their own cyber army; they can rent one from the multiple criminal networks that exist and who regularly sell their services. By keeping their target restricted enough (one small city, the electrical grid in one part of the country, one specific bank, etc.), terrorists could pull it off. Terrorists do not have to bring down our entire system but only do enough to provoke fear and reaction. They could also use cyber as a significant enhancer for a more traditional attack. Police in many cities worry that someone will hack their dispatch systems and route responders to an ambush or route them away from real events, a tactic that might ensure more people die from an attack and one that will truly shake public confidence.

Clarke is “right” when he says public education will not solve the cyber problem and when he says that no terrorist group is capable of conducting cyber war on America. He is wrong to dismiss the value of that education and awareness in mitigating everyday dangers and difficulties, and he is wrong to give the impression that a terrorist cyber event would be of no consequence.

We cannot throw these babies out with the bathwater. Read Clarke’s book, particularly if you need to get a better understanding of the cyber threats we face. It is well written and a fairly easy read for a tough subject. But please do not think that because Clarke gives the two areas of education and terror short shrift that they are not significant. That would be a costly mistake.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Terror Strategic Analysis, counterterrorism | Comments

Congress Heal Thyself (yet again)

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

How many times must the story be told of the mal-effects from the mishmash of Congressional turf battles over the Department of Homeland Security before something is done? Today’s latest entry is a well-done NPR story (no, that isn’t redundant) entitled, “Who Oversees Homeland Security? Um, Who Doesn’t?”

It is past time for the Congressional leadership of both parties to act. If Congress really wants to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” from government programs, it can start in its own House (and Senate). Make it a campaign pledge for Members running for re-election that they will eliminate the overlapping, duplicative and outright idiotic oversight structure that Congress currently imposes on DHS.

The American people have no problem with Congress holding DHS accountable – they just don’t want the Department charged with protecting us from bad people and bad things to be held hostage by 108 Congressional committees and subcommittees. It is past time to correct this problem.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Science & Technology | Comments

Nine States File Legal Briefs Declaring Support of Arizona Constitutional Authority

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Nine States File Legal Briefs Declaring Support of Arizona Constitutional Authority – Blogs for Borders

States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama’s administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law’s backers say Congress isn’t doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it’s the state’s duty to step up.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

The Earth-Moving Message Not Heard

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Like much of the National Capital Region, I am shocked we had an earthquake this morning. For people in Washington, DC, an earthquake is usually a shocking news story – like when a President has an intern do more than sharpen pencils; someone changes political parties and changes the balance of power; or when there is a major budget announcement and you find your life’s work is no longer funded.

But we had an honest to goodness 3.6-on-the-Richter-Scale-earth-moving experience. In typical DC fashion, this has generated the usual Beltway news hysteria. On the ride in this morning, radio stations of every genre were taking callers describing how the baseball caps fell off their TV; how their dog started barking uncontrollably; and their fears that construction workers had hit a gas-line in their neighborhood.

I thought the reactions I heard were hilarious, but they reminded me a lot of the reactions that most people in this area have when there is a forecast for snow. At the drop of a hat, people seem to run straight to the grocery and hardware stores to stock up on bread, milk, eggs and toilet paper while fighting with someone over the last available snow shovel in a 50 mile radius.

Now, our Nation’s Capital is built on a swamp; a fact proven by some of our wretched summers and watching some of the behavior captured on C-Span. But just because we live in an area were awful humidity, murky ground and mosquitoes find favor does not mean we are immune from all of Mother Nature’s furies. From the record snowfalls of earlier this year; oppressive humidity; destructive thunderstorms; flash flooding and more, our area is full of hazards. [And notice I didn’t even mention the threats associated with terrorism, our horrible traffic or riding Metro!]

This area has plenty of reasons to be on edge, and this morning’s earthquake gives us another. That’s where I thought this morning’s media failed us. While they all accurately described the events of 5 AM and what impacts the earthquake did or did not cause, I did not hear one of them talk about PREPAREDNESS.

Today’s earthquake is another one of those teachable moments when our media sources, public officials and more can be talking about having a plan, making a kit and being prepared. As fun as it is to hear the anecdotal stories of who did what when the Earth moved, none of those stories will save a live or make a positive difference if we don’t take the individual positive steps for our families and our businesses – if we don’t do the basics of being ready. That’s a message that needs to be reinforced at every available moment, and I hope people wake up to that fact and start talking about it.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

“Flooded with Help – But Still Flailing”

Friday, June 25th, 2010

In what I can only call a solid piece of researched commentary, Dan Kaniewski of GWU’s Homeland Security Policy Institute and Jim Carafano of the Heritage Foundation have put together a great article, “Flooded with Help – But Still Flailing” on the forgotten and unlearned lessons of Hurricane Katrina and how they are impacting the on-going Gulf Oil Spill. As anyone who works in emergency management space knows, time and time again you end up planning for the same disaster that just occurred without applying the lessons and remedies that need to be in place for the next time something occurs.

With facts in their hands, both of these esteemed homeland security scholars detail how the failures of before remain firmly anchored in place today. Give it read and I guarantee you that you’ll shake your head in frustration but it’s truth that must be faced if we are ever going to improve how we deal with disasters when international assistance is offered to us.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

“The US border has never been more secure”

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Before a packed audience at CSIS, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered what can only be described as a pointed and aggressive defense of the Obama Administration’s border security efforts. Declaring that “the US border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo,” her “tough talk” about border security comes at a very interesting time.

With the Obama Administration poised to challenge in court the recently enacted tough Arizona immigration law, the ongoing southwest border violence and recent charges by Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) regarding a recent Oval Office meeting with the President about when immigration reform might be tackled, the Obama Administration rolled out their most experienced border expert to take on its critics and declare what had been done.

While I’ve never seen her campaign for elective office, I got the sense from her delivery that she was very happy to put on her boxing gloves and take on all comers. It was in essence a campaign speech to declare what had been done on the Administration’s watch and to make sure they knew the President and his team deserved credit for it.

Pointedly saying, “the numbers tell a story and don’t lie,” the Secretary detailed increases in border patrol hiring and deployments, increases in enforcement and deportations, and in technology deployments. The numbers were impressive and they do tell a positive story, but sitting in the audience, I and a number of other attendees noted that many of the investments and numbers she heralded were initiated by her predecessor, Michael Chertoff and the previous Administration. I haven’t had time to do it, but it would be an interesting side-by-side comparison to put the end-of-term Chertoff accomplishments against the numbers professed at CSIS. I’m sure the numbers have improved, but they were already trending in the right direction. Fortunately the Obama Administration has kept them going that way.

I’m sure that sounds like political pettiness (especially from a former DHS political appointee, as I was), but for as quick as this Administration is to blame the Bush Administration for all that is wrong in the world, there are a number of things for which they also deserve credit. Doubling the size of the border patrol and other investments are part of that legacy. I realize it is not in Sec. Napolitano’s job description to burnish the legacy of her predecessor or the previous Administration but a significant portion of what she crowed about at CSIS she inherited, and it has made a difference. If that sounds defensive, it was supposed too. The “facts also tell a story.”

In sending out the Administration’s strongest and most experienced voice on the southwest border, the White House through DHS is essentially taking head-on the criticisms of the 24-7 punditry (e.g. Fox News, etc.); Congress; and states like Arizona that are looking to follow with their own tough illegal immigration measures. Declaring several times that border security “is the responsibility of the federal government” and “we can’t have 50 different policies” for immigration, “smart actions” were the only thing that could solve the on-going border security problems that plague our nation.

To reinforce that point, Chief Rob Davis of the San Jose Police Department emphasized the challenge and confusion that he and other police departments face. “Do you want us [police officers] out looking for murderers, rapists and other bad guys or arresting illegal immigrants?” Explaining that his police department was facing a potential force reduction of 8 percent because of ongoing budget problems in California, he stated that communities across America were going to have to make a choice of what they wanted policed when resources such as his were becoming increasingly limited. And having 50 different immigration enforcement policies was not a suitable answer.

His point couldn’t have been driven home any better, and his call for the nation to produce a comprehensive immigration bill was just what the Secretary wanted to hear. Applauding his public service as well as his statement, Secretary Napolitano offered that until that was done by Congress, our border problems would continue.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, Management & Administration, Smuggling | Comments

Police chief: Cartels threaten U.S. law enforcement in Arizona

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Police chief: Cartels threaten U.S. law enforcement in Arizona – Homeland Security Newswire

We reported two months ago that there is a new twist in the on going war along the U.S.-Mexico border: Mexican smugglers now use “cloned” Border Patrol vehicles to smuggle drugs into the United States. There is an added danger here, as Mexican drug cartels have launched an assassination campaign against U.S. law enforcement personnel along the border; driving a Border Patrol look-alike vehicle allows the assailants to get closer to their targets without arousing suspicion (“Mexican smugglers clone Border Patrol vehicles to evade detection,” 12 April 2010 HSNW).

Speculation about death threats by Mexican drug cartels toward U.S. law enforcement has been widespread for some time, but this is the first time U.S. officials along the border confirmed a case.

CNN’s Nick Valencia reports that the threats began less than two weeks ago, after off-duty police officers from the Nogales police department seized several hundred pounds of marijuana from a drug smuggling operation they stumbled upon while horseback riding in the eastern fringes of Nogales, the chief said. The smugglers in the incident managed to flee into Mexico before they could be detained, Nogales Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told CNN.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Defense, Narcotics, Smuggling, counterterrorism | Comments

Erroll Southers: Who’s Learning Faster, Al Qaeda or Us?

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Who’s Learning Faster, Al Qaeda or Us? – Homeland Security Today

There are a growing number of Americans who, despite enjoying the benefits of freedom and rule of law, choose to become terrorists, bent on killing their countrymen, destroying property, and if necessary, dying in the process. They pose a unique danger because impressionable and misguided Americans can plan and execute attacks in anonymity more effectively than their non-American terrorist brethren. They represent the “nightmare” threat scenario.

Posted in Homeland State & Local, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Private and Physical Security, Radicalization, Terror Finance, Terror Strategic Analysis, counterterrorism | Comments

Water Systems – A Rising Rate to Lift Our Nation?

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Leaders at every level of government continue to ignore the obvious, and dare I say, “inconvenient” truth about water: We need to raise rates. Either that or get used to being thirsty, stock up on Pepto-Bismol, and get ready for a mean tutorial on what Cholera feels like.

Peter H. Gleick got it right in his Washington Post editorial. U.S. water systems are the best in the world, but the fight to maintain water quality may be lost if utilities remain hamstrung by requirements to under charge for services. Apparently, paying more than $0.01 per gallon is a mortal sin. Consider that the next time you plug $2.00 into a vending machine for a 20oz bottle of Aquafina.

According to the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress and the American Society of Civil Engineers, there is a respective spending shortfall of $298.1 billion for clean water systems and $220 billion for drinking water systems to replace their aging infrastructure over the next 20 years. That’s a lot of money for a resource we cannot live without, but no one seems to be listening.

While much of this issue should be handled locally, Congress needs to help too. Asking the public to accept paying higher water rates in return for Congress contributing additional dollars for investment in water systems is reasonable. Dear Congress: Stop talking and toying with the idea of creating a water bank utilities could access to get the funds they need to save our water systems. Instead, try actually establishing one.

At a time when government has become more reactionary than proactive, we need our elected representatives at all levels to rise above the fray and act for the greater good. If water is life, and life is short, then we have a responsibility to act now – before the tap runs dry.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

Managing Large Enrollment Programs – Tougher Than it Looks

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

By Michael T. Dougherty

It is an open question whether Congress will address comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year or find time to work on smaller immigration packages such as the DREAM Act or AgJOBS. If any legislation includes a pathway to citizenship for some or all the 10.8 million illegal immigrants that the Department of Homeland Security estimates reside in the United States, Congress should ensure that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS agency responsible for administering immigration benefits and services, has the resources that it needs to promptly and accurately enroll that population.

In the enrollment, USCIS would be required to oversee the intake of immigrant applications and fees, collect biometrics, perform background security checks, conduct interviews, adjudicate applications, and issue identification cards – all while staying current with its existing caseload, which is both demanding and diverse.

USCIS has not experienced an enrollment event of comparable size – the nearest would be the surge of applications and petitions that occurred in the summer of 2007, when USCIS received around 3 million filings prompted by an increase in fees, the availability of employment-based visas, naturalization drives and perceptions that immigration enforcement would increase.

USCIS is not alone in facing the prospect of administering a large enrollment program. Other federal agencies have done the same, as have government agencies and ministries around the world. Perhaps none is as ambitious as the Indian government’s plan to issue unique identity numbers to 600 million residents by 2014 to better track and control the distribution of government benefits.

To understand enrollment dynamics, Raytheon Homeland Security studied reports and materials on 10 domestic enrollment programs occurring in the last 25 years.

We took away numerous lessons from our review. While different agencies administering different programs face distinctive challenges, they usually share several pressure points, including the need to speedily deliver benefits, documents, or other items of value to a very large number of people whose identity and eligibility must be accurately assessed; this while facing significant political scrutiny and heightened public expectations. On this last point, it should be remembered that individuals involved in an enrollment – whether hurricane victims, people needing credentials for work or travel or those seeking to adjust immigration status – are often experiencing their own set of pressures and anxieties. They understandably expect and need rapid results from government. With so much on the line, enrollments events can make or break an agency’s reputation.

Our review shows that there is no substitute for comprehensive planning. Agencies that have undertaken a rigorous and honest assessment of their own capabilities are best positioned to know what they need to maintain the integrity of the program without losing momentum. Modeling and simulation (M&S) tools can provide agency leaders with an objective means of measuring the readiness of the agency’s enterprise. This in turn helps them objectify acquisition requests and defend policy choices.
M&S also socializes frequently overlooked voices from field personnel – it is not always true that agency leaders access or understand what passes as common knowledge to line staff in operations. M&S helps build consensus among managers, protecting against stalls or reverses in program planning. If a model is properly framed and updated, it will remain a durable planning tool throughout an enrollment surge. It may also function as a tool for gathering metrics to accurately and rapidly report to executive and political leaders.

Immigration reform poses many difficult issues for Congress. One primary issue needing resolution will be the determination of how to provide resources to USCIS (which gets most of its budget through fee collections) in advance of the enrollment event so that USCIS can rapidly expand operations to meet the surge of applications sure to come.

Michael Dougherty, Director of Immigration Control with Raytheon Homeland Security, is the former Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement | Comments

A Need to Prioritize Intelligence Analysis at Fusion Centers

Monday, June 14th, 2010

By Steve Serrao

Having visited and worked in many fusion centers across the nation, I often wonder how much attention is given to a basic question: Are we conducting analysis or not?

Fusion centers, which started as a project between the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, share information and intelligence with the federal government and within their local jurisdictions. The answer to the question of whether the centers conduct analysis varies widely, and it is partly dependent on whether the fusion center’s goal is to provide strategic-intelligence analysis or serve as a tactical operational data-sharing operation.

Several managers at the centers I visited told me they feel as if they are “flying by the seat” of their pants when it comes to analysis. For example, as Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) come in, the center’s limited personnel focus on a tactical response, and often times strategic analysis never occurs.

When the tactical mission overtakes the strategic mission, it becomes impossible for the fusion center to paint the “big picture” of major plots or threats.

Your center can be a data fusion center by simply amassing numerous data stores in one location so you can quickly and efficiently query for results tied to an investigation. This approach allows instant access to various data sources – but minimal analysis occurs.

In contrast, some fusion centers focus on strategic analysis, and those are generally the ones I define as intelligence centers. These centers collect information independent of the tactical case load from many sources, including investigations, informants, debriefings, physical and electronic surveillance, and by searching open sources. They have officers and analysts collecting and analyzing the data, making assessments of what threats are posed and what potential for criminal activity exists.

Fusion centers that have decided to perform both data fusion and analysis need the appropriate staff and resources assigned. Strategic analysts develop over years of training and work experiences; they aren’t hired right out of college. There must be a division of analytical labor. For example, it doesn’t make sense to have highly trained analysts working on tactical daily activity like “turning and burning” routine SARs.

If there is strategic analysis being done, fusion centers need to determine what content should be in their published bulletins and ensure that it gets to the appropriate audiences. Progress on these issues will continue to place fusion centers at the center of adding value to “all crimes, all hazards” law enforcement efforts.

Captain Stephen G. Serrao is a former New Jersey State Police Counterterrorism Bureau Chief and is currently Director of Product Management, Americas Region for Memex, Inc., a provider of intelligence management, data integration, search and analysis solutions.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Terror Strategic Analysis, counterterrorism | Comments

E-Verify Gets Critical Improvements but Still Lacks Identity Verification

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

The Department of Homeland Security’s continued commitment to E-Verify is apparent from the new E-Verify re-design, which will be launching on Sunday, June 12, 2010.

The new re-design is a huge improvement in terms of the look and feel of the E-Verify program, giving users enhanced security, accuracy and efficiency. The USCIS team that developed the re-design focused on user needs identified through surveys and other feedback. The goal appeared to be simple: how can we make E-Verify a better, more intuitive and usable product for human resource managers?

If the preview information and government-sponsored webinars are any indication, USCIS has made significant progress. The new E-Verify design gives employers new tools, such as case alerts notifying managers that there are new updates about a case and reminders to re-verify expiring work authorization documents. Failing to close a case is one of the most common E-Verify errors, and the alerts should help remind managers to do that in a timely fashion.

The tickler for re-verification, contained in the E-Verify system, should help employers manage the re-verification process through a website that they are already using on a regular basis. The re-design also simplifies the process for E-Verify users by replacing many of the clunky, bureaucratic definitions contained on the site with plain English alternatives. As the USCIS website states, “you shouldn’t need a glossary” to conduct employment verification.

Unfortunately, the new system still does not address the most pressing need of many employers – an ability to address prevalent identity theft and false claims of U.S. citizenship. USCIS has made some substantial progress in this area, but employers should not and cannot rely on E-Verify as truly doing comprehensive “employment verification.” As such, it is critical that employers use the system in coordination with other tools to ensure unauthorized workers are not evading detection.

Employers should also be aware that the re-design gives the government additional information about how the employer manages its hiring process. For example, the re-design requires human resource managers to provide additional details about why a case is closed. In the old version, if an employee quit or was fired during the E-Verify process (for legitimate, non-E-Verify reasons), the human resource manager would indicate that the employee “self-terminated.” There was no place for the human resource manager to indicate that the employee was terminated by the company for other reasons.

Now, the E-Verify system will require the human resource manager to specifically indicate whether the employee voluntarily quit or whether the employer fired the employee for reasons unrelated to the E-Verify process. Given that USCIS is now sharing information from E-Verify with other government agencies, including the Office of Special Counsel at the Department of Justice and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the new detailed responses could, in certain circumstances, trigger an investigation by the government into the company.

For example, take an employer who appeared to be terminating a statistically high number of employees during the E-Verify process. You can imagine a scenario where this irregularity is referred to the Office of Special Counsel to ensure that the employer is not firing individuals for E-Verify tentative non-confirmations or other impermissible reasons. Even if the firings are legitimate (failed drug tests, etc.), the employer is likely to have to spend additional time and attorney resources responding to the investigation that was generated by their own information submitted to E-Verify.

Finally, even with the new tools, employers must guard against over-reliance on the automated assistance. For example, the re-design’s reminder system for documents that need to be re-verified should help human resource managers remember to conduct re-verification for expiring work authorization documents. However, the E-Verify system does not and cannot tell whether a human resource manager really re-verified the employee or whether they simply indicated on the alert that they did so. It is certainly possible for personnel to close or ignore the alerts out of carelessness, which could potentially cause significant harm for the company if ICE conducts an audit of the I-9s. In addition, corporate administrators overseeing the E-Verify process for a company cannot view all the re-verification alerts or track the system at this point.

Despite these shortcomings, overall the new re-design should be a welcome improvement for employers. The enhanced tools and information also demonstrate the broader DHS commitment to enhance the E-Verify system. This commitment is a positive sign that the government is serious about helping employers successfully determine employment verification.

For those interested in learning more about the redesign and new requirements, E-Verify will host an online webinar on Thursday, June 10, at 2:00 PM EDT.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Watch the Live Broadcast – Roundtable on 100 Percent Air Cargo Screening

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Readers may recall my past blogs about air cargo screening and an upcoming mandate that will have significant ramifications for supply chain efficiency.

When Congress passed the 9/11 Act of 2007, they made law a mandate for all air cargo flown on passenger-carrying planes to be scanned for explosives. The law gave the private sector three years to comply; it will be three years in August.

So where is the private sector vis-à-vis 100 percent air cargo screening readiness? In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ratcheted up the necessary amount of screened cargo to 75 percent. While this deadline appears to have been met, by most accounts, the private sector is still largely behind the curve and not fully prepared for August.

To be sure, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been working closely with the private sector in preparation for the mandate, in part through the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). CCSP has been well-received in some industries; certainly, we are closer now to reaching 100 percent screening than before. But there is still much to be done.

To that end, American Airlines Cargo is joining forces with TSA and others for a roundtable on the law and CCSP, which will broadcast live online at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, May 26.

The roundtable will broadcast from the Knight Studio at the Newseum in downtown Washington, DC (the same studio where ABC News’s political news show, “This Week,” is shot).

The forum will bring together public and private sector experts who will discuss how to achieve the 100 percent screening mandate, primarily by leveraging CCSP. Roundtable panelists (some of whom contribute to Security Debrief) include:

Dave Brooks, President, American Airlines Cargo Division
Doug Brittin, General Manager, Air Cargo, TSA
Brandon Fried, Executive Director, Airforwarders Association
Ken Konigsmark, Senior Manager, Supply Chain & Aviation Security Compliance

Jeff Sural (former legislative counsel at TSA and crruently homeland security counsel at Alston and Bird’s Legislative & Public Policy Group) will serve as moderator.

If you’re unfamiliar with the law requiring 100 percent screening, or if you would like to see — and participate in — a forum on how it applies to your business, be sure to watch AA Cargo’s air cargo screening roundtable at 2:00 PM EDT on Wednesday, May 26. Panel participants will take questions from viewers live online during the program.

Editor’s note: American Airlines Cargo is an Adfero client.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Unprecedented Service – Thad Allen’s Almost Retirement

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

On Tuesday, a man much of America recognizes for his leadership following the occurrence of a “bad day” will relinquish his command of one of our country’s oldest branches of federal service, the U.S. Coast Guard. Having served the past four years as Commandant, Thad Allen has become one of those unique, iconic American figures that when you see him or mention his name, you almost immediately think of words, “trust,” “competent” and “leader.”

He is, for lack of a better description, a Walter Cronkite type – one of the most trusted people in America – a man that citizens could turn to and hear straight facts, be they good or bad, with no BS or political showmanship. It gave you comfort to see and hear him because you knew that he was on the job to make the situation right.

In a country gripped by bi-partisan, anti-incumbency fever, where career seniority is seen as a liability and not an asset, his departure as Commandant couldn’t happen at a more challenging moment. For those who are privileged to know him and have worked for him (as I did in 2005 during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), his retirement is certainly the culmination of a distinguished 30-year career. He has truly earned whatever break he and his family want to have from constant moves, late night briefings, long deployments, Congressional hearings and rubber chicken dinners. As difficult as all of those things may have been for him and his family, Allen’s career has been about two things: leadership and service to others.

Because of recent events, we know just a few of the public metrics of those two attributes, most notably his service as lead for the Federal response following Hurricane Katrina. With hundreds dead, thousands displaced, an American city in ruin, and a flop of a Federal response dropped in his lap, if there was ever a no-win situation for a person to step into, it was Katrina. There truly was no place to go but up, but it took leadership to point the correct direction and take the first step. It was Allen who began the trek out of the muck.

As someone who was there in Louisiana at the time, I can say without hesitation that when he took over, there was a literal sea change in how the response unfolded. In respecting the various jurisdictions of all of the federal, state, local and private sector players, Allen empowered his people to take action to make change happen and happen quickly. It was for those reasons that then-President Bush and DHS Secretary Chertoff tapped him to respond to one of our nation’s darkest days. It is for those exact same reasons that President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano have asked him to serve as the National Incident Commander in dealing with the on-going oil spill in the Gulf – an unprecedented service that he will continue to fulfill even after his tenure as Commandant ends on Tuesday.

Allen’s career in the Coast Guard is almost unparalleled given the increased public recognition that it brought for him personally and to his service branch. Most Americans can recognize the country’s senior military leadership from news photos and television coverage, but for generations of Americans, the U.S. Coast Guard was a service not in prominent public view. To many Americans, the Coast Guard was synonymous with the guys who patrolled the rivers and lakes and made sure everyone behaved themselves with their boats. As unfortunate as the circumstances were, the Coast Guard’s unrecognized leadership and service to others caught the full attention of the country as the responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita unfolded.

Helicopter airlifts, boat patrols and other rescues were the bright spots in bleak days. Fate happened to put Thad Allen in the center of it all. From that point forward, Allen’s unsought celebrity brought recognition to him and to the men and women with whom he served; something that was long overdue for a service that has been in operation from this country’s beginning. The unique “gift” of public recognition also provided Allen the political capital to say things that needed to be said (especially during budget hearings) and to put in place things that needed to be there to deal with twenty-first century threats (e.g. Deployable Operations Group, etc.).

Allen is not without his critics, but few can deny his elevation as Commandant and recognition of his service branch are due to a unique military culture that insists that public, private and military sectors work together to achieve mission success. While DHS is made of many distinguished and accomplished parts, few of them have anything like the culture of the Coast Guard that trains its personnel from Day One to adapt and respond to events and processes, rather then be subject to processes and bureaucratic programming.

Such are the hallmarks of a career founded in leadership and service to others. They just don’t end when a final salute is given and a command change is complete. Instead, they show up on Wednesday to deal with on-going bad days and to make miserable situations right. Thad Allen’s career could not end any other way.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Stratfor’s Bad Day Forecast

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

You know it’s going to be rough day when you go to get in your car and discover a flat tire. You know your day has the potential to get even worse when you’re listening to the morning news, and they tell you that the Nation’s Capital or New York City are going to be attacked by terrorists in the next five to six months. So say the forecasters of Stratfor.

Great. All I really wanted to hear were the scores of the NHL playoff games and the traffic and weather report. Now this.

Stratfor’s forecast is one of those instances where an organization really puts itself out there. As a result of making that bold prediction, WTOP and other media outlets are giving them lots of attention today. As anyone who makes predictions knows, whenever you make a very public call – be it in sports, the weather, or in this case, acts of terrorism – you have every chance of looking like Nostradamus or a complete fool who doesn’t have a clue.

As bold as their prediction might be, it is in concert with what a lot of what people in the security and intelligence communities have been warning about for some time, both publicly and privately. As attention grabbing and media attractive as Stratfor’s warning may be, it also serves as a wake up call to citizens, businesses, public safety officials and others to prepare themselves for what could truly be a “bad day.”

That means following through on the “See Something, Say Something” adage that saved hundreds of lives from the failed efforts of Faisal Shahzad in Times Square. It means having an emergency communications plan for you and your family should something occur and you can’t leave downtown as fast as you like.

It also means taking a good look at places to shelter and other business continuity practices to make sure everyone knows their role should something horrible occur. There are lots of things that a forecast like Stratfor’s should spur us to do. Even if nothing occurs, the fact that people act on information to prepare themselves is a step every one of us should be taking today.

There are critics that will see Stratfor’s comments, and those of government and private sector experts, on a prospective terror strike to DC and NYC as fear-mongering.

The accepted challenge in saying something about these conditions is that it is fair warning to one and all of what might occur. In this type of environment, you are truly damned if you do and damned if you don’t but the truth is hard and cold for NYC and DC. They are the number one and two targets in the United States and everything else in this country is also fair game for international and domestic terrorists.

Such is the reality and risk of living and working in DC or the Big Apple. If you live in either place, you accept that risk if you want to go about living your life in those areas. If you don’t, you either decide to move away or live a life that many people would not find as outgoing or enjoyable.

But let’s face facts, the “bad day” forecasts have been around for a while now, and I don’t expect anything is going to happen to radically change those conditions.

We all need to do our part to make ourselves ready and resilient to endure whatever event occurs, whenever it happens – even on those mornings when your day begins with a flat tire.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland State & Local, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Private and Physical Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Thailand Shows the Incredible Cost of Inadequate Crowd Management Tactics

Monday, May 17th, 2010

The endgame appears to have begun for the protests in Bangkok, as security forces take an increasingly hard line and casualties are mounting. There is no doubt that the government had to take action, as the impact of the protests has started to cause real damage to the Thai economy. With some estimates forecasting a drop of up to 3 percent in the GDP this year and up to $6 million a day lost by the businesses in the city center alone, the government feels their actions are necessary to protect the economy. But the tactics being used may cause even more lasting damage.

Tourism makes up 6 percent of the Thai GDP, and scenes of serious disorder and soldiers firing live rounds in central Bangkok are currently being seen in the homes of potential tourists all over the world. This may deter people from travelling to Thailand for years to come. The unfortunate fact is that the Thai Police and Army have had the equipment and manpower required to end the commercial district occupation since it was occupied on April 3 without the loss of life we are now seeing. The only thing they have been missing is the appropriate tactics and training to conduct the mission.

Following the failed attempt to clear Phan Fah Bridge on April 10 and the resulting casualties, the Army in particular appears to have abandoned the U.S. police-style tactics they had been using to that point. They resorted to the tactics they were widely criticized for using in April 2009. The numbers now being killed and injured are a direct result of this incident. That failure resulted from U.S.-style tactics not being appropriate for the level of violence they faced and in particular the mix of peaceful protesters, violent rioters and those prepared to use lethal force, such as firearms and hand grenades.

There are few organizations that have faced this type of mixed lethal and nonlethal threat, but in Western democracies, those that have faced it have been capable of designing tactics and procedures that enabled them to deal with this form of rioting without resorting to an indiscriminate use of lethal force. The appropriate use of vehicles, faster, more dynamic tactics and better use of their water cannon could have prevented most of the injuries and deaths we have seen and many of those that are still to occur.

The lessons here are that the training and tactics for dealing with disorder must be designed to suit the type of threat you face in your country or city – the organizational culture, political environment, equipment and other factors. Using tactics simply copied from elsewhere will create more problems than it solves and place not only the police officers at risk but also protesters and bystanders. All police departments must be able to manage the escalation and de-escalation of the crowd, and keep their own actions from causing or escalating violence. Thailand’s failure to learn that lesson after last year’s protests is proving costly in terms of lives, and it is likely to be equally costly economically in the future.

Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland State & Local, International, Law Enforcement | Comments

Visa Waiver Program Not a Primary Contributor to Illegal Immigrant Population

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Reporting from ground zero in the immigration debate, the Arizona Republic recently wrote that, “not every illegal immigrant in the United States snuck across the border. A very large number, perhaps as many as 5.5 million, entered legally with visas and then never left.”

As the article goes on to state, the 5.5 million figure (which would be nearly half of the nation’s estimated illegal immigrant population) is at best an educated guess. The U.S. Government hasn’t published nonimmigrant overstay rates since 1992. However, DHS’s picture of overstay rates has come into greater focus over the past several years as the systems and processes used to capture automated records of nonimmigrant arrivals and departures have improved significantly. As a result, we can say with much more certainty that the vast majority of these “overstayers” did not enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).

Current data shows a cumulative overstay rate from VWP countries of less than 1 percent. What’s more, this rate is likely overstated. For example, it includes travelers for whom DHS has no record of departure. While some of them may have overstayed, others likely departed without filling out the departure forms or using documents that can be easily matched to their incoming records. Also, all matching errors within the system are treated as overstays, which artificially increases the overstay rate.

While there are still data gaps – most notably, there is minimal collection of departure records at land ports and resource and logistical issues make it highly unlikely that DHS will have the additional capability to collect these records in the near future – the VWP data strongly suggest that the program has not been a substantial contributor to illegal immigration to the United States.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement | Comments