There has been some recent discussion concerning Eco-terrorism including Congressional hearings with testimony by the FBI and The Center for Consumer Freedom, along with attention by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So is there Eco-terrorism, is it a real threat, and what is the motivation of those engaging in it. Wow, that's an awful lot to look at so I'll just hit the high points.
Is there Eco-terrorism? The government, the private sector (at least the portion involved with animals) and the Environmental/Animal Rights movements certainly think so, but the question is in how it is defined. According to Paul Watson, founder of The Sea Shepards Conservation Society, explains in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters that the actions of the companies and governments that damage the environment are acts of terrorism; however the FBI (and likely all federal law enforcement) and those companies in the private sector that have been targeted see Eco-terrorism in a different light - as terrorism. Why the difference? Well, simply put, no one calls themselves a terrorist - at least not seriously. They are always something else because they have a cause, and they generally also have interpretation of morality that justifies their actions. In this case the Enviro-Animal Rights movement works around a couple of justifications that are essentially synonymous.
First is 'Biocentrism,' or the belief that all life is equally valuable. Second is Speciesism, which is similar to racism or sexism in that humans wrongfully mistreat other species rather than treating them as equals. What? You say this doesn't jive with your sense of morality? Well it doesn't have to at this point. There are, however, those that feel you need to change, and they are willing to use violence to affect that change. This, of course, depends on your definition of violence. The Animal Rights/Liberation folks argue that violence can only be committed against animals and not property, so they do not describe their actions as violent - because they only destroy property. Destruction in the form of arson, denial of service attacks, intimidation and open threats.
Yah, but they're only freeing animals from labs, you say? Take a reality check, now! I'm not talking about those that engage in legal protests or "relatively harmless" efforts to rescue animals. No I'm talking about the arson in San Diego costing over $50 million in damage - that's right $50,000,000. I'm talking about posting the names, addresses, and family information (children's schools, etc.) of executives for companies that have been targeted on the web for all to see. This may not seem so bad to you, but imagine if you were hated by a group of people - a group large enough to provide individual anonymity - and your information was posted at a website frequented by these members. Members that read such material as "Eco-defense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching" and other materials that discuss methods for intimidating individuals - threatening letters, phone calls and the like. Wouldn't you be just a bit concerned? I think so.
The goal with these movements are similar but not identical. The Environmental movement comes in several varieties that can be seen as a continuum. On one end are those that are focused on conservation, or protecting current wild lands, and leading to those that want to reintroduce wildlife - particularly predators - into these wildlands, which lead to others that want to reclaim wildlands - including displacing humans now in residence - and still others at the far, far extreme that want to reverse the technology clock altogether. So the goal is to protect the environment from human damage - often seen to be caused by technology and overpopulation - and to improve the environment. Some radicals argue against vaccines as inappropriate meddling with nature while she is trying to balance the ecology by reducing the populations. The Animal Rights movement, as it is generically called, can also be seen on a continuum. On one end is Animal Welfare, followed by Animal Rights, followed by Animal Liberation. Animal welfarists tend to argue specifically against cruelty to animals but may not elevate them to the same status as humans. Animal Rights folks argue that animals are equals and will work to rescue them with their fringe element, Animal Liberationists, being those willing to commit serious crimes to "liberate" animals and damage enterprises that are considered exploitative.
So is it a real threat? Sure. As much as any other movement can be when they are willing to break the law, destroy property, and threaten human lives. How far will their efforts go? Well that really depends on many things, but it's unreasonable to believe they will simply change their beliefs and go home - expect to see these folks around for some time now.
For some more information search such topics as: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!, Animal Rights, and so on....
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Shoplifting - boosting, lifting - The five-fingered discount
In a recent article concerning a study on retail theft, Dr. Richard Hollinger of the University of Florida makes points that are no doubt interesting; however if you've ever worked in retail security it shouldn't be news.
Roughly 8% of people that enter a store will steal something. Sounds alarming, but there has long been an accepted honesty continuum in the retail loss prevention (LP). It's commonly called the 80/20 rule but it does not resemble Pareto's law very much. It goes something like this: 10% of your employees will steal, 80% may steal, and 10% will never steal. It is generally applied to any population. The purpose of the concept is to reinforce the need for internal controls. The consequence for a lack of internal controls can be found by searching news sources for 'embezzlement.' Controls provide an opportunity to encourage the fenceriders (the 80% that may steal) not to take assets without permission.
Getting back to shoplifters... They come in all shapes and sizes and profiling them is best done based on behavior rather than some cultural feature. From my own experience as an LP Officer over just three years I apprehended persons as young as 10 years old and as old as, yes I'm serious, 74 years old. What did they steal? Whatever they wanted from clothes to linen to pillows to lingerie to the silliest little knickknacks you can imagine (like refrigerator magnets). Some fought (and fought hard) but most just come back to the store when asked. Why do they steal? Now that is a question that draws much debate, but it's not generally because they lack the funds. By far the vast majority of those I apprehended had enough money on their person to pay for the items they had stolen. "They just forgot," you say? Some may have, but those I did not apprehend. Why? Because we had a policy of following those that had not concealed the merchandise (indicating their knowledge that they possessed the merchandise) until they did conceal it. Did some realize their mistake and go back to pay, yes, and they probably never knew we were behind them all the way back. Why apprehend when you can make a sale? The fact they returned without encouragement would indicate to me that they were sufficiently embarrassed by their own conscience.
As I said, all shapes and sizes - and so were the amounts of their thefts. Some take only one item and are quite difficult to catch, while others take considerable amounts for resale. Consider another continuum with amateur on one side and professional on the other. The pro's live off their thefts and the amateurs do not. Everyone in the middle supplement their lifestyles to differing degrees with stolen items.
What do shoplifters do? Well, first this is not to be construed as legal advice to go out and start putting your hands on people or accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but here are a few thoughts. Most SL's get nervous before their actual theft. The theft technically occurs (in many states within the U.S.) at the time of concealment. The SL must look around to ensure they are not being watched, or head to a very concealed place (like a fitting room or bathroom). Other times their nervousness causes them to act somewhat erratically - going from lingerie to tools, or women's dresses to men's jeans - as they try to determine if they are being followed. So the eyes give it away and the hands make the move. Those that are part of an organized theft team will typically steal in large quantities using bags, boxes or other "tools." What do they want - the good stuff - of course. They may be selling them to a fence (pawn shop or other illegal buyer) or they may be delivering them to re-pack houses for shipment to legitimate customers that are unknowingly buying stolen goods.
I can go on forever about shoplifters... Call it a perennial thorn in my side since my earliest days in security. Heck, we didn't mention refund-artists or credit fraud at all. One day we'll get to those as well.
Rob
/
Roughly 8% of people that enter a store will steal something. Sounds alarming, but there has long been an accepted honesty continuum in the retail loss prevention (LP). It's commonly called the 80/20 rule but it does not resemble Pareto's law very much. It goes something like this: 10% of your employees will steal, 80% may steal, and 10% will never steal. It is generally applied to any population. The purpose of the concept is to reinforce the need for internal controls. The consequence for a lack of internal controls can be found by searching news sources for 'embezzlement.' Controls provide an opportunity to encourage the fenceriders (the 80% that may steal) not to take assets without permission.
Getting back to shoplifters... They come in all shapes and sizes and profiling them is best done based on behavior rather than some cultural feature. From my own experience as an LP Officer over just three years I apprehended persons as young as 10 years old and as old as, yes I'm serious, 74 years old. What did they steal? Whatever they wanted from clothes to linen to pillows to lingerie to the silliest little knickknacks you can imagine (like refrigerator magnets). Some fought (and fought hard) but most just come back to the store when asked. Why do they steal? Now that is a question that draws much debate, but it's not generally because they lack the funds. By far the vast majority of those I apprehended had enough money on their person to pay for the items they had stolen. "They just forgot," you say? Some may have, but those I did not apprehend. Why? Because we had a policy of following those that had not concealed the merchandise (indicating their knowledge that they possessed the merchandise) until they did conceal it. Did some realize their mistake and go back to pay, yes, and they probably never knew we were behind them all the way back. Why apprehend when you can make a sale? The fact they returned without encouragement would indicate to me that they were sufficiently embarrassed by their own conscience.
As I said, all shapes and sizes - and so were the amounts of their thefts. Some take only one item and are quite difficult to catch, while others take considerable amounts for resale. Consider another continuum with amateur on one side and professional on the other. The pro's live off their thefts and the amateurs do not. Everyone in the middle supplement their lifestyles to differing degrees with stolen items.
What do shoplifters do? Well, first this is not to be construed as legal advice to go out and start putting your hands on people or accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but here are a few thoughts. Most SL's get nervous before their actual theft. The theft technically occurs (in many states within the U.S.) at the time of concealment. The SL must look around to ensure they are not being watched, or head to a very concealed place (like a fitting room or bathroom). Other times their nervousness causes them to act somewhat erratically - going from lingerie to tools, or women's dresses to men's jeans - as they try to determine if they are being followed. So the eyes give it away and the hands make the move. Those that are part of an organized theft team will typically steal in large quantities using bags, boxes or other "tools." What do they want - the good stuff - of course. They may be selling them to a fence (pawn shop or other illegal buyer) or they may be delivering them to re-pack houses for shipment to legitimate customers that are unknowingly buying stolen goods.
I can go on forever about shoplifters... Call it a perennial thorn in my side since my earliest days in security. Heck, we didn't mention refund-artists or credit fraud at all. One day we'll get to those as well.
Rob
/
Monday, August 22, 2005
Embezzlement - breach of Trust
I was just reviewing some recent news articles concerning crimes at churches and I had to stop and take a second look. Clearly more than half of the articles I looked at dealt with embezzlement. In addition, some of these involved Pastor's and in at least one instance the thefts had been occurring for several years. Now this isn't unusual necessarily, but it does beg the question - "Why did it go on for so long?"
The answer is simple is found where the security and accounting professions meet. Lack of Controls - or - Lack of Effective Controls. The bottom line here is that no one was paying attention or, more importantly, the right people weren't paying attention. Many times these losses can be traced back to one particular control - Separation of Duties - which, many times, is a difficult one to overcome in small organizations. Separation of duties simply requires that multiple persons be involved in transactions to ensure their legitimacy. For instance, the person approving the purchase of supplies and the person writing the check for them should be separate people. Another example would include at least two different persons for writing checks and reconciling the bank account. Again, this is not difficult or complicated, but it is often ignored, overlooked, or just overrun by the wrong person. The reasoning behind the use of multiple persons is an assumption that collusion is not always easy to accomplish, but it is, many times, and so one last step may be added as an extra safety measure - the independent auditor.
Take a look at your organization. Use process mapping (flowcharting, etc.) to determine how funds are received, verified, accounted for, and dispersed. Then step back and look at the chart, but not in a friendly way. Take a look at with eye to defeating it. Oh, and do this with multiple persons as well, and document the event clearly so that should something come up in the future you role and knowledge are clear. Now how can the process, at it is currently mapped, be defeated? Who in the process, now, has that capability? Remember that a threat requires both capability and intent. So just because someone has the capability does not mean that they have done anything wrong, but it is a good place to begin adjusting process. Never forget that we exist in a changing environment - everything changes - including the people within it. So motivations, or the person a particular role may change and then the problem begins.
Anyone interested in either process-mapping or on developing near-bullet-proof process send an email to rmetscher@apinnovations.biz
Rob
/
The answer is simple is found where the security and accounting professions meet. Lack of Controls - or - Lack of Effective Controls. The bottom line here is that no one was paying attention or, more importantly, the right people weren't paying attention. Many times these losses can be traced back to one particular control - Separation of Duties - which, many times, is a difficult one to overcome in small organizations. Separation of duties simply requires that multiple persons be involved in transactions to ensure their legitimacy. For instance, the person approving the purchase of supplies and the person writing the check for them should be separate people. Another example would include at least two different persons for writing checks and reconciling the bank account. Again, this is not difficult or complicated, but it is often ignored, overlooked, or just overrun by the wrong person. The reasoning behind the use of multiple persons is an assumption that collusion is not always easy to accomplish, but it is, many times, and so one last step may be added as an extra safety measure - the independent auditor.
Take a look at your organization. Use process mapping (flowcharting, etc.) to determine how funds are received, verified, accounted for, and dispersed. Then step back and look at the chart, but not in a friendly way. Take a look at with eye to defeating it. Oh, and do this with multiple persons as well, and document the event clearly so that should something come up in the future you role and knowledge are clear. Now how can the process, at it is currently mapped, be defeated? Who in the process, now, has that capability? Remember that a threat requires both capability and intent. So just because someone has the capability does not mean that they have done anything wrong, but it is a good place to begin adjusting process. Never forget that we exist in a changing environment - everything changes - including the people within it. So motivations, or the person a particular role may change and then the problem begins.
Anyone interested in either process-mapping or on developing near-bullet-proof process send an email to rmetscher@apinnovations.biz
Rob
/
Friday, August 19, 2005
Are you safe with the new TSA guidelines????
From this Washington Post Article it might appear that the government has lost its mind. Just a few years ago we were led to believe that everyone was to be a suspect and that small bladed knifes were as dangerous as guns. What are we to do now? I don't know if I'll feel safe flying now!!! Will you???
If you are easily scared by reality, or if you are a constantly worry about what if, what if, or what if, then read no further. Remain ignorant - and as unsafe as you ever were.
Look folks this change is a good thing! Let me say this again: "We are only safe when we choose to be safe!" We are never safe when we relinquish our moral obligation to self-defense to a third-party. (This takes nothing away from those who - everyday - go to work and attempt to provide security for others... Military, law enforcement, correctional officers, and, well yes, security professionals.)
First of all, finding small blades can be very difficult, at best, during a screening process such as one finds at airports. Ask any security professional responsible for building security. Throughput is king! With that said... I remember shortly after September 11, 2001 (yes I was flying on the first day flights were permitted) a flight attendant asked me to move to the front of the plane near the cockpit door and then asked, "If anything happens will you help me?" What a disturbing question. If anything happens. What is supposed to happen? We've been carefully stripped of all tools that human development has provided us to make us able to defend ourselves better. What was really disturbing is that someone may have said 'no'. After answering in the affirmative, all I could think was what all those years of telling citizens to submit to crime, criminals, and miscreants had done to us. We lost our will to resist. Why do I say this now? Because if you think that a pocket knife is that big of a threat on a plane then you lack a certain amount of the survival drive (I deeply apologize if this offends anyone, but keep reading).
A pocket knife is of little use, if you understand how resilient the human body is, against a determined defender. A human an bleed a considerable amount before experiences a serious degradation in their capabilities. Some say that bleeding is the most over-treated injury. So a little slice here or there might be disturbing but not seriously damaging. Now a thrust could be deadly. A thrust of just about two inches into the torso will hit an organ - not good. So how do you fight back on a plane? Think man, think! (Woman too). Be creative - MacGyver creative - what is around you in the passenger cabin? Seat cushions, magazines, headphones (with wire), air sick bags, the armrest, seatback trays, soda cans, plastic utensils, plastic cups, and anything in your carry on bags - like hard plastic bookmarks and so on. Roll up a magazine and strike yourself (not your little brother or best friend - belated sorry Russ) and see how much that hurts. Striking major muscles can cause them to malfunction - also called fluid shock techniques - or use it a means to keep that little toy knife at bay. Throw water in someone's face (cocktails are better) to distract them. A soda can weighs roughly one pound. It can really hurt when used as a rock - thrown or striking. If it's empty, tear the top and bottom off and fold the long strip of metal into a very sharp edge. So I ask again, "What do you defend yourself with?" And the answer is the same as it has been for centuries - Your Mind! Do not panic - react. Do not submit - overcome. Oh, by the way, a pocket knife is very likely to fold onto your own figures if you try to use it as a thrusting weapon - a bad experience I do not recommend.
That all sounds great, I know. I've been spouting if for years, but practically speaking the bad guys to have advantages at the of attack - mainly coordinated action. So how then are these changes to security policies worthwhile?
The threat has changed significantly. I would venture to say that, unlike the 1970's, if someone were to yell this is a hijacking they would be picking their teeth up off the floor pretty fast. The bad guys thrive on control, and they get it by instilling fear (terror). The few affecting the many by affecting the few. They threaten one person to hold everyone at bay and so. Anyway, these policies reflect the fact that times have changed. It's time to focus on the next threat, whatever that may be.
Rob
/
If you are easily scared by reality, or if you are a constantly worry about what if, what if, or what if, then read no further. Remain ignorant - and as unsafe as you ever were.
Look folks this change is a good thing! Let me say this again: "We are only safe when we choose to be safe!" We are never safe when we relinquish our moral obligation to self-defense to a third-party. (This takes nothing away from those who - everyday - go to work and attempt to provide security for others... Military, law enforcement, correctional officers, and, well yes, security professionals.)
First of all, finding small blades can be very difficult, at best, during a screening process such as one finds at airports. Ask any security professional responsible for building security. Throughput is king! With that said... I remember shortly after September 11, 2001 (yes I was flying on the first day flights were permitted) a flight attendant asked me to move to the front of the plane near the cockpit door and then asked, "If anything happens will you help me?" What a disturbing question. If anything happens. What is supposed to happen? We've been carefully stripped of all tools that human development has provided us to make us able to defend ourselves better. What was really disturbing is that someone may have said 'no'. After answering in the affirmative, all I could think was what all those years of telling citizens to submit to crime, criminals, and miscreants had done to us. We lost our will to resist. Why do I say this now? Because if you think that a pocket knife is that big of a threat on a plane then you lack a certain amount of the survival drive (I deeply apologize if this offends anyone, but keep reading).
A pocket knife is of little use, if you understand how resilient the human body is, against a determined defender. A human an bleed a considerable amount before experiences a serious degradation in their capabilities. Some say that bleeding is the most over-treated injury. So a little slice here or there might be disturbing but not seriously damaging. Now a thrust could be deadly. A thrust of just about two inches into the torso will hit an organ - not good. So how do you fight back on a plane? Think man, think! (Woman too). Be creative - MacGyver creative - what is around you in the passenger cabin? Seat cushions, magazines, headphones (with wire), air sick bags, the armrest, seatback trays, soda cans, plastic utensils, plastic cups, and anything in your carry on bags - like hard plastic bookmarks and so on. Roll up a magazine and strike yourself (not your little brother or best friend - belated sorry Russ) and see how much that hurts. Striking major muscles can cause them to malfunction - also called fluid shock techniques - or use it a means to keep that little toy knife at bay. Throw water in someone's face (cocktails are better) to distract them. A soda can weighs roughly one pound. It can really hurt when used as a rock - thrown or striking. If it's empty, tear the top and bottom off and fold the long strip of metal into a very sharp edge. So I ask again, "What do you defend yourself with?" And the answer is the same as it has been for centuries - Your Mind! Do not panic - react. Do not submit - overcome. Oh, by the way, a pocket knife is very likely to fold onto your own figures if you try to use it as a thrusting weapon - a bad experience I do not recommend.
That all sounds great, I know. I've been spouting if for years, but practically speaking the bad guys to have advantages at the of attack - mainly coordinated action. So how then are these changes to security policies worthwhile?
The threat has changed significantly. I would venture to say that, unlike the 1970's, if someone were to yell this is a hijacking they would be picking their teeth up off the floor pretty fast. The bad guys thrive on control, and they get it by instilling fear (terror). The few affecting the many by affecting the few. They threaten one person to hold everyone at bay and so. Anyway, these policies reflect the fact that times have changed. It's time to focus on the next threat, whatever that may be.
Rob
/
Risks from community events
Just a couple of quick comments on some of the concerns that arise from hosting community events within your facility and an angle towards this short mention about an attendee being threatened in a meeting.
We don't know what kind of meeting it was, and it really doesn't matter to much here. Whenever allowing anyone to utilize your facility it is very important to consider how this may impact your operation. The facility may need to remain open when it wouldn't normally be so, or you may be expected to allow the use of appliances or the entire kitchen, and without a thought towards any liability that may exist.
First - understand what the group will be doing in your facility and what support they may want and take a minute to learn a little about their history. Why do they wish to start using your facility. We're they asked to leave the last - the 'why' here is key. If there was a problem and you still want to help then discuss what efforts have been made to prevent or control a similar problem.
Second - know how this impact your operations. What times are the meetings? Are they outside your normal 'open times' and what additional resources will be needed. Will there be a significant effect on utilities, a need for a member presence and so on. If you already support other meetings then consider the topics carefully! It may not be wise to have a spousal abuser support group alongside an abused spouse group meeting, or any other sort of possible conflict.
Third - Decide what you plan to do to ensure your organization's safety, security, and operational continuity. Who will be responsible for opening and securing the facility, making sure coffee pots are turned off, and any expensive property placed in the protected area. How will you handle any press for a disruption at a meeting (planning ahead is essential to media survival and even triumph). If a kitchen is to be available decide ahead of time whether or not utensils and cookware will be made available. Don't let your knives become someone else's weapon - and so on, and so on.
In all matters, build in the means to take action if necessary. A formal contract with the group, and in some cases the attendees, concerning conduct, facility maintenance, and vacate times. Try to avoid putting yourself in a position that your only recourse is to evict the group. Provide terms that allow for individual misconduct - so long as it's corrected by the group. Otherwise you may become unwilling to take any action, and when you do take action it's resented by everyone.
The important thing to remember is this: Those who are attending the group (not necessarily the group organizers) do not have a stake in your facility or your organization. So it's essential to the community to host such functions, but it is equally important to protect that which allows you to continue operations.
Oh, and don't be afraid to spot check the meeting activities periodically, or to ask your members that routinely use the meeting area following the meeting whether the room is left in compliance with your agreement with the group. Not monitoring, not guiding, and the like only sets the group up for failure, and the goal is supposed to be help everyone succeed.
Rob
/
We don't know what kind of meeting it was, and it really doesn't matter to much here. Whenever allowing anyone to utilize your facility it is very important to consider how this may impact your operation. The facility may need to remain open when it wouldn't normally be so, or you may be expected to allow the use of appliances or the entire kitchen, and without a thought towards any liability that may exist.
First - understand what the group will be doing in your facility and what support they may want and take a minute to learn a little about their history. Why do they wish to start using your facility. We're they asked to leave the last - the 'why' here is key. If there was a problem and you still want to help then discuss what efforts have been made to prevent or control a similar problem.
Second - know how this impact your operations. What times are the meetings? Are they outside your normal 'open times' and what additional resources will be needed. Will there be a significant effect on utilities, a need for a member presence and so on. If you already support other meetings then consider the topics carefully! It may not be wise to have a spousal abuser support group alongside an abused spouse group meeting, or any other sort of possible conflict.
Third - Decide what you plan to do to ensure your organization's safety, security, and operational continuity. Who will be responsible for opening and securing the facility, making sure coffee pots are turned off, and any expensive property placed in the protected area. How will you handle any press for a disruption at a meeting (planning ahead is essential to media survival and even triumph). If a kitchen is to be available decide ahead of time whether or not utensils and cookware will be made available. Don't let your knives become someone else's weapon - and so on, and so on.
In all matters, build in the means to take action if necessary. A formal contract with the group, and in some cases the attendees, concerning conduct, facility maintenance, and vacate times. Try to avoid putting yourself in a position that your only recourse is to evict the group. Provide terms that allow for individual misconduct - so long as it's corrected by the group. Otherwise you may become unwilling to take any action, and when you do take action it's resented by everyone.
The important thing to remember is this: Those who are attending the group (not necessarily the group organizers) do not have a stake in your facility or your organization. So it's essential to the community to host such functions, but it is equally important to protect that which allows you to continue operations.
Oh, and don't be afraid to spot check the meeting activities periodically, or to ask your members that routinely use the meeting area following the meeting whether the room is left in compliance with your agreement with the group. Not monitoring, not guiding, and the like only sets the group up for failure, and the goal is supposed to be help everyone succeed.
Rob
/
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Lighting and landscaping
Here are a couple of quick thoughts that come straight from the concepts of Crime Prevention Through environmental Design (CPTED) - a concept that seeks to alter an environment to be 'unfriendly' to illegitimate activity while facilitating legitimate activities. It is very useful for managing space without making it look like a prison.
I have seen many churches with beautiful landscaping - unfortunately it all too often makes the bad guys efforts easier than it needs to - and with a few changes it will still be beautiful, but functional as well. Take the average shrub - it is the perfect size and shape for hiding a crouching person. So why not keep them far enough away from doors and paths to prevent an attacker from hiding right next to a potential victim? Trees as well, however with trees it is generally sufficient to create a canopy with the lowest branches too high to effectively conceal a person. Maybe trimming the shrubs to lower than 18" and the "canopying" the trees with branches no lower than say 6' would be sufficient to make it hard to hide. But what if it just won't look right to do this? Well it may be possible to place illumination in the concealed area - but not just throwing lights in the dark space. Many times the light may be positioned to cause persons concealed behind these obstacles (not all of them will be vegetation) to cast a shadow into a readily observable area. Consider how silly it must look... Just like a scene right out of Scooby Doo with the big shadow preceding the monster. Are there other "tricks" to this, absolutely!!! Consider lighting and vegetation to be complementary. They can work together to create paths for legitimate movement and clear boundaries for directing activity away from other areas.
How then can these boundaries be created? Well, it's certainly possible to plant a long line of bushes to create a physical boundary. Heck, plant it a few bushes deep and it becomes nearly impossible to move through it, but it looks like a big wall. Another method is called "fence posting" and involves obstacles that are spaced to create fixed points or "dots" that can be connected mentally. The closer the dots, the clearer the boundary - just think of the line of bushes as the closely spaced dots that they really are. Now couple these "fence posts" possibly with different types of grasses on each side or maybe mow the same grass in different directions and you have created a clear visual boundary.
More on this topic later... It's a very powerful tool so step back and look at your facility.
Rob
/
I have seen many churches with beautiful landscaping - unfortunately it all too often makes the bad guys efforts easier than it needs to - and with a few changes it will still be beautiful, but functional as well. Take the average shrub - it is the perfect size and shape for hiding a crouching person. So why not keep them far enough away from doors and paths to prevent an attacker from hiding right next to a potential victim? Trees as well, however with trees it is generally sufficient to create a canopy with the lowest branches too high to effectively conceal a person. Maybe trimming the shrubs to lower than 18" and the "canopying" the trees with branches no lower than say 6' would be sufficient to make it hard to hide. But what if it just won't look right to do this? Well it may be possible to place illumination in the concealed area - but not just throwing lights in the dark space. Many times the light may be positioned to cause persons concealed behind these obstacles (not all of them will be vegetation) to cast a shadow into a readily observable area. Consider how silly it must look... Just like a scene right out of Scooby Doo with the big shadow preceding the monster. Are there other "tricks" to this, absolutely!!! Consider lighting and vegetation to be complementary. They can work together to create paths for legitimate movement and clear boundaries for directing activity away from other areas.
How then can these boundaries be created? Well, it's certainly possible to plant a long line of bushes to create a physical boundary. Heck, plant it a few bushes deep and it becomes nearly impossible to move through it, but it looks like a big wall. Another method is called "fence posting" and involves obstacles that are spaced to create fixed points or "dots" that can be connected mentally. The closer the dots, the clearer the boundary - just think of the line of bushes as the closely spaced dots that they really are. Now couple these "fence posts" possibly with different types of grasses on each side or maybe mow the same grass in different directions and you have created a clear visual boundary.
More on this topic later... It's a very powerful tool so step back and look at your facility.
Rob
/
On to other matters
Congratulations to the U.K. on their efforts on dealing with the terrorists among them, and now let's move on to other topics. That is, of course, until some other incident occurs that causes near 24-hour coverage.
Anyone ever hear of Eco-terrorism before? It is not new - although the most destructive efforts seem to appear in the 1970's (Animal Rights) and 1980's (Environmental) - but it is not often addressed. Why? Who knows exactly. Just ask a few people and the wide variety of answers says it all. We just don't seem to take the problem seriously as a nation. I sincerely hope no one feels that I don't think other domestic extremists are as serious a problem, or even more so. I don't tend to find too many individuals that are sympathetic to such causes as racial supremacy, racial separatists, religious militants - and that would be any that espouse violence as an acceptable means to convert or cleanse anyone else - or any other groups that can fall into categories that are often referred to in the media as hate groups. Oh by the way, there are quite a few good resources on the topic of hate (groups, violence, crime, etc.) but my favority is the Southern Poverty Law Center. They really do an excellent job of tracking activities and groups. Their Hatewatch newsletter is a free service that delivers convenient links to via email on hate activities in the news. Anyway the reason I brought them up specifically is a recent report concerning the current (and real threat) of "right-wing" domestic terrorism. So extremism of all kinds can be a threat, but back to the Eco stuff.
Although we can treat them separately, the Environmental Movement and the Animal Rights movement have drifted ever closer together in their efforts. So here's a snapshot at understanding their beliefs and motivations. Why is this important? Well, quite frankly, no one ever seems to call themselves a 'terrorist.' Instead this is a label that is applied externally. There are Jihadists (not Muslim terrorists), Animal Liberators rather than terrorists - you get the point. Understanding motivation goes a long way to understanding the "randomness" of any attack. This is not to say that it becomes any easier to predict the next target, but it does become possible to identify a class of targets. So off we go, first with two key terms for comprehending this are Biocentrism and Speciesism. In short, these terms state that humans are just one life form among many; standing no higher or lower than any other, and treating other species as other than equals is ethically wrong. This is a very simplistic way to look at this but the origins of this can, arguably, be traced back to Darwin and his writings on the Decent of Man. Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation offers philosophical discussion on the topic, but for quite possibly the most interesting writing on the justifications for Animal Liberation by violent means there is Terrorists or Freedom Fighters and The Logic of Political Violence. To make a long argument short - Those that destroy property, threaten people and "liberate" animals are not terrorists because the animals our not ours to subjugate, and therefore it is morally correct to take action to free them in the face of illegal laws. These folks liken their efforts to the Nazi Resistance and the Underground Railroad. So there is their justification. Believe what you wish.
We can discuss this at some length - and you are probably getting bored with the topic as well - so we will come back a later time and look at the Animal Liberation and Environmental activities separtely. But if in the meantime take a look at just how many "direct actions" take place around the world.
Rob
/
Anyone ever hear of Eco-terrorism before? It is not new - although the most destructive efforts seem to appear in the 1970's (Animal Rights) and 1980's (Environmental) - but it is not often addressed. Why? Who knows exactly. Just ask a few people and the wide variety of answers says it all. We just don't seem to take the problem seriously as a nation. I sincerely hope no one feels that I don't think other domestic extremists are as serious a problem, or even more so. I don't tend to find too many individuals that are sympathetic to such causes as racial supremacy, racial separatists, religious militants - and that would be any that espouse violence as an acceptable means to convert or cleanse anyone else - or any other groups that can fall into categories that are often referred to in the media as hate groups. Oh by the way, there are quite a few good resources on the topic of hate (groups, violence, crime, etc.) but my favority is the Southern Poverty Law Center. They really do an excellent job of tracking activities and groups. Their Hatewatch newsletter is a free service that delivers convenient links to via email on hate activities in the news. Anyway the reason I brought them up specifically is a recent report concerning the current (and real threat) of "right-wing" domestic terrorism. So extremism of all kinds can be a threat, but back to the Eco stuff.
Although we can treat them separately, the Environmental Movement and the Animal Rights movement have drifted ever closer together in their efforts. So here's a snapshot at understanding their beliefs and motivations. Why is this important? Well, quite frankly, no one ever seems to call themselves a 'terrorist.' Instead this is a label that is applied externally. There are Jihadists (not Muslim terrorists), Animal Liberators rather than terrorists - you get the point. Understanding motivation goes a long way to understanding the "randomness" of any attack. This is not to say that it becomes any easier to predict the next target, but it does become possible to identify a class of targets. So off we go, first with two key terms for comprehending this are Biocentrism and Speciesism. In short, these terms state that humans are just one life form among many; standing no higher or lower than any other, and treating other species as other than equals is ethically wrong. This is a very simplistic way to look at this but the origins of this can, arguably, be traced back to Darwin and his writings on the Decent of Man. Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation offers philosophical discussion on the topic, but for quite possibly the most interesting writing on the justifications for Animal Liberation by violent means there is Terrorists or Freedom Fighters and The Logic of Political Violence. To make a long argument short - Those that destroy property, threaten people and "liberate" animals are not terrorists because the animals our not ours to subjugate, and therefore it is morally correct to take action to free them in the face of illegal laws. These folks liken their efforts to the Nazi Resistance and the Underground Railroad. So there is their justification. Believe what you wish.
We can discuss this at some length - and you are probably getting bored with the topic as well - so we will come back a later time and look at the Animal Liberation and Environmental activities separtely. But if in the meantime take a look at just how many "direct actions" take place around the world.
Rob
/
Friday, July 22, 2005
A second round in London yesterday
Once again there has been another theatrical presentation to frighten the west - and the UK in particular. Although this time there appears to have been some competency problems with the actors. These terrorists were apparently unable to successfully detonate their explosives. Lucky break, possibly, for everyone.
The biggest break from this may be the intelligence that can be gathered if the actors can be captured or arrested. However, there may also be very little intelligence to be gained as well. How these cells operate is not so secret any more - which is what has been leading to the pre-emptive dismantling of other plots - and hopefully some future plots. We will have to wait and see what intel comes from this.
It was reported that the police in London had responded to over 250 suspicious packages in the two weeks after the first attack. Remember, of course, that it is not how many packages are dealt with, but how many of the right packages are dealt with.
Once again - our best defense against terrorism is to recognize their goal and thwart that. Continue about your daily activities and be aware of your environment.]
The biggest break from this may be the intelligence that can be gathered if the actors can be captured or arrested. However, there may also be very little intelligence to be gained as well. How these cells operate is not so secret any more - which is what has been leading to the pre-emptive dismantling of other plots - and hopefully some future plots. We will have to wait and see what intel comes from this.
It was reported that the police in London had responded to over 250 suspicious packages in the two weeks after the first attack. Remember, of course, that it is not how many packages are dealt with, but how many of the right packages are dealt with.
Once again - our best defense against terrorism is to recognize their goal and thwart that. Continue about your daily activities and be aware of your environment.]
Tougher laws <> reduced losses
According to some recent media, the North Carolina legislature has sent a bill to the Governor that makes church burglary a more serious felony than before. Larger penalties, more time in jail, longer incarcerations, call it what you will it is all on the wrong end for security. While it can be said with some certainty that the intent of the bill is to reduce church burglaries and was developed in good faith, it can also be said with some authority that increased penalties only do so much for reducing crime.
Practically speaking, warehousing criminals for longer periods of time does prevent that criminal from committing further crime - at least on the public - during the incarceration, however let's consider the ultimate state sanction and its affect on crime and then we'll move to a better discussion. Murder is punishable by the death penalty in many states. This penalty has not significantly reduced the murder rate where ever it is applied. Yes, I know, there are many reasons for this and extensive circumstances that affect it, but let's admit that, by and large, increasing penalties beyond a specific point has little further deterrent effect.
So let's focus on the fact that increasing penalties do more for the politicians than for the victims - in this case churches. Once a facility, any facility, has been violated there is damage - physical and psychological - and that damage cannot always be fixed easily. There are losses - direct and indirect - that affect when or if a facility can be used again, or whether operations must be relocated, postponed, or ceased. We can discuss losses another time, but for now it is important to recognize the value of preventing losses. A proportionate investment in protective strategies is a budgeted occurrence, but dealing with a loss is crisis-spending. Unplanned, unbudgeted and generally the impact causes some other program to be reduced.
There were five burglaries in North Carolina that occurred just prior to the passing of this bill. Five organizations lost assets that affected their lives and how their operations were conducted, but far worse was the feeling that someone had invaded sacred space, stolen objects, and possibly, if not likely, desecrated the sanctity of the church. Could the burglaries have been prevented? Absolutely and without a doubt YES! But remember sometimes it is necessary to accept some risk rather than completely altering, impeding or destroying how operations are conducted. Too much prevention could make worship services impossible. But burglary is generally a preventable loss and at the very least it could have been possible to mitigate the actual loss that occurred. Sometimes it's technology that can help and other times it's processes, procedures and community involvement. Determining the proper mix is matter best completed after a Risk Assessment - which incidentally usually take one or two days to complete at most churches and maybe another week for analysis and reporting - and can mean the difference between losses and prevented losses (which is not exactly a 'gain' but much better than a loss).
What I'd really like to impress upon everyone here is that increased criminal penalties are a great gesture by the government but they do not necessarily help reduce losses. The bad guy is probably still going to commit the act - and then you're just stuck with the aftermath, the cleanup, and the personal impact felt by each member. Applaud the legislature for responding to the community - but role up your sleeves and start planning how to prevent the need for the law.
This first step an any Risk Assessment is to determine what assets exist within the organization. Consider this for your organization - you'll find that there is a lot more than you may have first realized. Have you considered what the impact might be if one, some or all of these were lost?
Practically speaking, warehousing criminals for longer periods of time does prevent that criminal from committing further crime - at least on the public - during the incarceration, however let's consider the ultimate state sanction and its affect on crime and then we'll move to a better discussion. Murder is punishable by the death penalty in many states. This penalty has not significantly reduced the murder rate where ever it is applied. Yes, I know, there are many reasons for this and extensive circumstances that affect it, but let's admit that, by and large, increasing penalties beyond a specific point has little further deterrent effect.
So let's focus on the fact that increasing penalties do more for the politicians than for the victims - in this case churches. Once a facility, any facility, has been violated there is damage - physical and psychological - and that damage cannot always be fixed easily. There are losses - direct and indirect - that affect when or if a facility can be used again, or whether operations must be relocated, postponed, or ceased. We can discuss losses another time, but for now it is important to recognize the value of preventing losses. A proportionate investment in protective strategies is a budgeted occurrence, but dealing with a loss is crisis-spending. Unplanned, unbudgeted and generally the impact causes some other program to be reduced.
There were five burglaries in North Carolina that occurred just prior to the passing of this bill. Five organizations lost assets that affected their lives and how their operations were conducted, but far worse was the feeling that someone had invaded sacred space, stolen objects, and possibly, if not likely, desecrated the sanctity of the church. Could the burglaries have been prevented? Absolutely and without a doubt YES! But remember sometimes it is necessary to accept some risk rather than completely altering, impeding or destroying how operations are conducted. Too much prevention could make worship services impossible. But burglary is generally a preventable loss and at the very least it could have been possible to mitigate the actual loss that occurred. Sometimes it's technology that can help and other times it's processes, procedures and community involvement. Determining the proper mix is matter best completed after a Risk Assessment - which incidentally usually take one or two days to complete at most churches and maybe another week for analysis and reporting - and can mean the difference between losses and prevented losses (which is not exactly a 'gain' but much better than a loss).
What I'd really like to impress upon everyone here is that increased criminal penalties are a great gesture by the government but they do not necessarily help reduce losses. The bad guy is probably still going to commit the act - and then you're just stuck with the aftermath, the cleanup, and the personal impact felt by each member. Applaud the legislature for responding to the community - but role up your sleeves and start planning how to prevent the need for the law.
This first step an any Risk Assessment is to determine what assets exist within the organization. Consider this for your organization - you'll find that there is a lot more than you may have first realized. Have you considered what the impact might be if one, some or all of these were lost?
Friday, July 15, 2005
A little more on the Critical Detection Point
Alright, I mentioned this last post and I think it deserves a little more explanation. But I'll try to keep it brief. Check THIS out for additional information on the theory and application behind this.
Remember we discussed security efforts as deter, detect, delay, deny? And prevent, detect, respond? Well this is where the math meets the road. It goes something like this.
An attacker must complete certain tasks to successfully complete their objective, whatever that might be. You must devise a way, in advance, that thwarts their efforts. A significant part of the problem is that at some point all the prevention in the world fails to stop the attack. So there must be a response which naturally follows a successful detection of the threat. So assuming that an attack occurs at what point in the attack must the detection occur in order to insure that the response gets there in time. Garcia offers us a mathematical formula to describe this. Yes I know that we all thought that we left math theory behind a long time ago, but here it is:
CDP = TR > TG
TR is the minimum remaining delay on the adversary path, and
TG is the guard (police) response time
.
Alright so that wasn't any more simple. Look, you just have to make sure that the attack is detected with enough time that the response has enought time to stop it from being successful.
At that is the point. Where do you want to stop the attack? Before they gain access the property? Before they gain access to the building? Or, before they gain access to the safe? That's it.
Security, all security, is a function of time - I know we're back to math and I wasn't very strong in math either. But remember that although you are secure right now - most certainly because of carefully designed process but never by chance - you may not be secure in just a few minutes. Times change! New technology is introduced and diligence changes.
Here a few concepts playing on the time function of security:
- With unlimited time you can gain access to anything or anyplace
- There is never unlimited time - we get old, assets move, etc.
- With unlimited time it is possible to acquire any necessary resources
- With unlimited resources you can gain access to anything or anyplace
- But these are also limited - people, money, tools, etc.
- Resources are used to reduce the amount of time needed to be successful
- More people = overwhelming force
- More tools = technology being defeated quicker
- More money = more ability to acquire other resources
That's enough for now.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Burglaries - Internal countermeasures
Just yesterday we discussed a few ideas for dealing with burglars before they have gotten inside the building. So let's continue with the building and its interior... But for now let's just focus on detecting their intrusion.
The natural thought for keeping burglars out is an alarm system. However, alarms do not really prevent a person from entering. Consider again the concepts of deter, detect, delay, deny. An alarm system is generally meant only to detect an attack. Some integrated systems can initiate an automated response but strictly speaking an alarm only detects. Granted some aspects of it may deter an intruder and a determined intruder attempting to bypass an alarm system will certainly be delayed, but let's stick to its detection value.
Keeping bad guys out of the building falls to physical control devices - locks, doors, windows, walls and so on. Once a person has reached the building there are some considerations. Make sure foliage is trimmed (less than 18") and canopied (above 5-6') to enhance the detectability of a person near the building. Windows and doors should be locked! Bad guys are generally 'minimalists' and want ease and convenience. Now assuming that they do not have a key to an exterior door (and how many churches really implement a key control program - does yours) and that all other access points are secured, the bad guy will have to force access. That means a broken window, door frame, or padlock (in the case of sheds).
They're in! How do you know? Well a well designed alarm system can be very useful with this, however most systems are not well designed or well installed - thus many false alarms. Frequent false alarms mean that the police response will cease, at some point, from being a serious effort. This can be mitigated with a CCTV (closed-circuit television) camera system that allows a monitoring service to verify the alarm before sending a response, but that can really cost money up front.. It is however an excellent solution. Sparta is an exceptional company providing remote video monitoring services and there are several others.
I strongly encourage alarm systems, but today's technology offers some low-cost options that can be very effective. Take for instance, integrated wireless sensors and control panel that also offer network notification methods - that's right - email or text messaging. So rather than paying for a monitoring service it is possible to have your (or several members of your congregation) cellphones messaged directly by the alarm system. What a great tool.
So without an alarm system how does one know that an intrusion has occurred? One method we've already discussed briefly are patrols. The issue here is how long will it take the burglar to accomplish their goal - what is the delay? Having someone 'patrol' the property several times over the course of a night could offer detection that is timely enough. But let's consider one additional piece of technology network accessible CCTV. Yes, rather than having someone actually expose themselves to danger by walking or driving to the property they can observe the area from the safety of their own home (laptop at a wireless access point). Just a thought..
The answer, without technology, is creativity... The key concept to remember here is the Critical Detection Point which is the point in an attacker's activity that affords the last possible detection in order for a response to disrupt their success. In other words, the time will the bad guy need to complete the task minus the time it takes a response to arrive and disrupt the activity and the amount of time it takes to initiate that response after the detection. These numbers are generally pretty sloppy but it does offer a way to consider just how much observation may be needed without an alarm system - and how fast response will be needed with an alarm system.
Rob
/
The natural thought for keeping burglars out is an alarm system. However, alarms do not really prevent a person from entering. Consider again the concepts of deter, detect, delay, deny. An alarm system is generally meant only to detect an attack. Some integrated systems can initiate an automated response but strictly speaking an alarm only detects. Granted some aspects of it may deter an intruder and a determined intruder attempting to bypass an alarm system will certainly be delayed, but let's stick to its detection value.
Keeping bad guys out of the building falls to physical control devices - locks, doors, windows, walls and so on. Once a person has reached the building there are some considerations. Make sure foliage is trimmed (less than 18") and canopied (above 5-6') to enhance the detectability of a person near the building. Windows and doors should be locked! Bad guys are generally 'minimalists' and want ease and convenience. Now assuming that they do not have a key to an exterior door (and how many churches really implement a key control program - does yours) and that all other access points are secured, the bad guy will have to force access. That means a broken window, door frame, or padlock (in the case of sheds).
They're in! How do you know? Well a well designed alarm system can be very useful with this, however most systems are not well designed or well installed - thus many false alarms. Frequent false alarms mean that the police response will cease, at some point, from being a serious effort. This can be mitigated with a CCTV (closed-circuit television) camera system that allows a monitoring service to verify the alarm before sending a response, but that can really cost money up front.. It is however an excellent solution. Sparta is an exceptional company providing remote video monitoring services and there are several others.
I strongly encourage alarm systems, but today's technology offers some low-cost options that can be very effective. Take for instance, integrated wireless sensors and control panel that also offer network notification methods - that's right - email or text messaging. So rather than paying for a monitoring service it is possible to have your (or several members of your congregation) cellphones messaged directly by the alarm system. What a great tool.
So without an alarm system how does one know that an intrusion has occurred? One method we've already discussed briefly are patrols. The issue here is how long will it take the burglar to accomplish their goal - what is the delay? Having someone 'patrol' the property several times over the course of a night could offer detection that is timely enough. But let's consider one additional piece of technology network accessible CCTV. Yes, rather than having someone actually expose themselves to danger by walking or driving to the property they can observe the area from the safety of their own home (laptop at a wireless access point). Just a thought..
The answer, without technology, is creativity... The key concept to remember here is the Critical Detection Point which is the point in an attacker's activity that affords the last possible detection in order for a response to disrupt their success. In other words, the time will the bad guy need to complete the task minus the time it takes a response to arrive and disrupt the activity and the amount of time it takes to initiate that response after the detection. These numbers are generally pretty sloppy but it does offer a way to consider just how much observation may be needed without an alarm system - and how fast response will be needed with an alarm system.
Rob
/
Monday, July 11, 2005
Burlgaries in the Southeast
Recently I have seen many articles on the burglaries of various churches. Ah burlaries - I promised. Now here's a topic that is relatively simple compared with Arson but no less devastating in many instances to the minds of the victims.
As I mentioned in the first post ACCESS is everything. A burglar must have access, right. So let's consider some of the key points in the attack tree for a typical burglary.
1. The subject (A1 - attacker one) must defeat the perimeter of the property
2. A1 must defeat the perimeter of the structure (building, shed, rectory, chapel, etc.)
3. A1 must select, gather and prepare asset(s) for removal
4. A1 must transport the selected asset(s) out of the structure and off the property.
Now we can't dictate whether A1 arrives on a bike or with a tractor-trailer so we can't control how much he/she is able to transport away. We can probably also assume that defeating the perimeter and moving to the building are given events - I haven't seen many houses of worship with effective permiter fences. That brings us to the building.
We should want to deter their efforts to gain access and this can be done at many levels, but for now we'll consider signage, illumination, irrigation, and patrols. That's all pretty straightforward. Signs that indicate that an alarm system is in use - I really dislike offering this advice if there is no alarm system because any thief worth his weight will have determined this ahead of time - but it can't hurt all the same. Lighting that makes the intruder more visible to passersby - thereby increasing the perceived risk of detection. This has only a psychological impact if the property is already well concealed from passing traffic. It is also possible to have sprinkler systems set to be activated by motion sensors. This may sound silly, but have sprinklers and lights activate together will likely spark the response of running away prior to any decision to continue. It may also cause the intruder to make some noise out of complete annoyance. The options for enhancing this are nearly endless depending on the intention. Heck it even result in a some amusing video. On an incidental note - a well soaked intruder may be easier for the police to identify while escaping.
Now the topic of patrols. This may be police, a security service, or passersby (such as congregation members) that have agreed to communicate or document findings. Again, creativity here can save some money, but sometimes it's just worth paying some to check in periodically. This option should also be considered in advance as a contingency. If a series of buglaries - or vandalism for that matter - occur to other houses of worship in your area it might be time to activate that pre-agreed upon contract with a security provider to begin periodic patraols. This may be just enough to move the micreants to another location and the service could be ended whenever they may be caught by the authorities.
So there are few thoughts on preventing burglaries outside the building. There are many more but want to try and keep this as short as possible. Feel free to comment with your own thoughts. Next we'll look at methods useful from within the building. Remember water is relatively harmless, cheap and can create the opportunity for footprints or identifying the burglar. Oh yea, there is the amusement factor as well.
Rob
/
As I mentioned in the first post ACCESS is everything. A burglar must have access, right. So let's consider some of the key points in the attack tree for a typical burglary.
1. The subject (A1 - attacker one) must defeat the perimeter of the property
2. A1 must defeat the perimeter of the structure (building, shed, rectory, chapel, etc.)
3. A1 must select, gather and prepare asset(s) for removal
4. A1 must transport the selected asset(s) out of the structure and off the property.
Now we can't dictate whether A1 arrives on a bike or with a tractor-trailer so we can't control how much he/she is able to transport away. We can probably also assume that defeating the perimeter and moving to the building are given events - I haven't seen many houses of worship with effective permiter fences. That brings us to the building.
We should want to deter their efforts to gain access and this can be done at many levels, but for now we'll consider signage, illumination, irrigation, and patrols. That's all pretty straightforward. Signs that indicate that an alarm system is in use - I really dislike offering this advice if there is no alarm system because any thief worth his weight will have determined this ahead of time - but it can't hurt all the same. Lighting that makes the intruder more visible to passersby - thereby increasing the perceived risk of detection. This has only a psychological impact if the property is already well concealed from passing traffic. It is also possible to have sprinkler systems set to be activated by motion sensors. This may sound silly, but have sprinklers and lights activate together will likely spark the response of running away prior to any decision to continue. It may also cause the intruder to make some noise out of complete annoyance. The options for enhancing this are nearly endless depending on the intention. Heck it even result in a some amusing video. On an incidental note - a well soaked intruder may be easier for the police to identify while escaping.
Now the topic of patrols. This may be police, a security service, or passersby (such as congregation members) that have agreed to communicate or document findings. Again, creativity here can save some money, but sometimes it's just worth paying some to check in periodically. This option should also be considered in advance as a contingency. If a series of buglaries - or vandalism for that matter - occur to other houses of worship in your area it might be time to activate that pre-agreed upon contract with a security provider to begin periodic patraols. This may be just enough to move the micreants to another location and the service could be ended whenever they may be caught by the authorities.
So there are few thoughts on preventing burglaries outside the building. There are many more but want to try and keep this as short as possible. Feel free to comment with your own thoughts. Next we'll look at methods useful from within the building. Remember water is relatively harmless, cheap and can create the opportunity for footprints or identifying the burglar. Oh yea, there is the amusement factor as well.
Rob
/
Terrorism and criticism of intelligence
Before starting this blog I put a couple of posts concerning the recent events in London.
But it's stil in the news and will be for some time. The story changes in the news periodically. First the devices were detonated at varing times and now the devices on the trains all are believed to have gone off at the same time.... This is an excellent illustration of the problems with intelligence operations. Here we have events that occured in an environment that is public and it still took nearly an entire day to refine the collected data into accurate information... Although this example is actually more of discussion on the exercises of historians it does illustrate a point.
Imagine trying to determine events that will occur in the future with such inaccurate, intentionally misleading, and incomplete data. This is world of intelligence operations. It is the process of trying describe the image presented in a puzzle as far before it is completed as possible. Doesn't sound too hard does it. Now make it more interesting and will the puzzle is being put together start pouring in pieces to other puzzles, mix them up, and now you have an inkling of the difficulties. How many pictures must be assembled? What if some pieces fit into multiple puzzles - how would you know.
My experiences with intelligence dealt with the Eco/Animal Rights movement with decidedly different consequences for failure but just as difficult. We criticize those analysts that were unable to read the signs, predict the future, and know the adversary's intention like God himself (or insert the appropriate term here for your beliefs).
I must say that I honestly hate very few things, but I absolutely hate quoting television and movies. It just seems a little less worthy than quoting some great written work. This, of course, is just a personal prejudice and I digress only because I must now quote a television show - and a Brit one at that.
There is a show in the UK called Spooks ( but here in the U.S. it is called MI-5). For those unaware, MI-5 is a U.K. intelligence agency with some similarities to the FBI - but not don't try to draw a clean connection. The U.K. is a different country with different rights and governmental structure. Anyway my point is that there is a line in an episode whena police officer is killed as a result of an MI-5 operation when the widow (and there's always a grieving widow on TV) challenges the patriotism of an MI-5 operative. And so a section leader made a statement to this effect, "You may question our methods, we certainly do it constantly, but never question our motive."
With that said let's just keep one thought in mind when we hear (or engage in) criticism of our intelligence efforts. No one, least of all those charged with identifying it ahead of time, likes to lose or look foolish. Nearly everyone gets a bloody nose from a sucker punch at least once in their life so in answer to some of the comments belittling the intel community I leave this posting. We can all "do our part" in the war on terror and still keep getting bloody noses because it's hard to figure out who in the crowd is going to punch next.
Damn this got long real quick. Sorry about that. If you persevered this far I offer one book that has some interesting reading on the topic - Cracking a Terror Network - is written as fictional account with a CD with supplemental information. If you curious what sorts of Eco inspired threats we have check out these: Terrorist or Freedom Fighters and The Logic of Political Violence.
Enough said. I'll try and keep them shorter in the future.
But it's stil in the news and will be for some time. The story changes in the news periodically. First the devices were detonated at varing times and now the devices on the trains all are believed to have gone off at the same time.... This is an excellent illustration of the problems with intelligence operations. Here we have events that occured in an environment that is public and it still took nearly an entire day to refine the collected data into accurate information... Although this example is actually more of discussion on the exercises of historians it does illustrate a point.
Imagine trying to determine events that will occur in the future with such inaccurate, intentionally misleading, and incomplete data. This is world of intelligence operations. It is the process of trying describe the image presented in a puzzle as far before it is completed as possible. Doesn't sound too hard does it. Now make it more interesting and will the puzzle is being put together start pouring in pieces to other puzzles, mix them up, and now you have an inkling of the difficulties. How many pictures must be assembled? What if some pieces fit into multiple puzzles - how would you know.
My experiences with intelligence dealt with the Eco/Animal Rights movement with decidedly different consequences for failure but just as difficult. We criticize those analysts that were unable to read the signs, predict the future, and know the adversary's intention like God himself (or insert the appropriate term here for your beliefs).
I must say that I honestly hate very few things, but I absolutely hate quoting television and movies. It just seems a little less worthy than quoting some great written work. This, of course, is just a personal prejudice and I digress only because I must now quote a television show - and a Brit one at that.
There is a show in the UK called Spooks ( but here in the U.S. it is called MI-5). For those unaware, MI-5 is a U.K. intelligence agency with some similarities to the FBI - but not don't try to draw a clean connection. The U.K. is a different country with different rights and governmental structure. Anyway my point is that there is a line in an episode whena police officer is killed as a result of an MI-5 operation when the widow (and there's always a grieving widow on TV) challenges the patriotism of an MI-5 operative. And so a section leader made a statement to this effect, "You may question our methods, we certainly do it constantly, but never question our motive."
With that said let's just keep one thought in mind when we hear (or engage in) criticism of our intelligence efforts. No one, least of all those charged with identifying it ahead of time, likes to lose or look foolish. Nearly everyone gets a bloody nose from a sucker punch at least once in their life so in answer to some of the comments belittling the intel community I leave this posting. We can all "do our part" in the war on terror and still keep getting bloody noses because it's hard to figure out who in the crowd is going to punch next.
Damn this got long real quick. Sorry about that. If you persevered this far I offer one book that has some interesting reading on the topic - Cracking a Terror Network - is written as fictional account with a CD with supplemental information. If you curious what sorts of Eco inspired threats we have check out these: Terrorist or Freedom Fighters and The Logic of Political Violence.
Enough said. I'll try and keep them shorter in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)