Category Archives: Uncategorized

Why We Need to Switch to a Risk-Based Security Model – School Stabbing at Franklin Regional, Active Shooter Incidents at Fort Hood (twice), LAX, and The Washington Navy Yard.

Posted on by • 0 Comments

When I turned on the news today, I was in the middle of writing an article on the 2nd Shooting
at Ft. Hood from last week, and then saw that there had been a violent knife attack at a
Pennsylvania high school, with 20 casualties and at least eight injured critically, the next day,
there was a hate crime shooting at the Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas.

Once again, we see violence on a mass scale, the FBI has been brought in, and next will come
information on the victims.   With two major events, in two weeks, what can we deduce about the
security in place at both Franklin Regional High School, Pennsylvania, and Fort Hood, Texas.

        NEWS FLASH:   THE CURRENT SECURITY MODEL IS NOT WORKING!

CURRENT SECURITY MODELS

Disaster preparedness is improving,  Emergency Management is working, but security is
still not where it needs to be.  It is a systemic problem based on the fact that security around
the U.S. is still locked in a REACTIVE mode, not a PROACTIVE mode.

The main reason for this reactive mode in security organizations, is because most security
officers come from a law enforcement background, with a model which is based on crimes
and arrests, and it is totally REACTIVE.  A crime happens and police officers go into action
and arrest the perpetrator(s).

CRIME HAPPENS    =    PERP IS IDENTIFIED    =   PERP IS ARRESTED

Unfortunately, this reactive model does not work for preventing security incidents and mass violence
because it is INCIDENT DRIVEN, not Risk-Driven.  It focuses on individuals, not on a more holistic,
generalized view of Threats, and it totally leaves Solutions (Controls) out of the equation.

After studying pages of after action reviews, post-incident analyses and media sources, the one
recommendation that makes sense is that organizations need to switch to a RISK-BASED,
PROACTIVE mode for security to work.

This was highlighted in a remark made by a Pentagon official, commenting on the 2nd Fort Hood
Shooting on April 2, and the fact that new DOD recommendations for security, had just been released.

“After the Navy Yard shooting in September 2013, another round of recommendations were made
to improve security at all DOD installations, however, a  Pentagon official said that the new
recommendations had not yet been put into effect at Fort Hood.  At Fort Hood, very little had
changed from 2009 regarding security procedures for soldiers at the entrance gates.”

The question for the Department of Defense is “how could this happen again at the same military
base?  I took extra time to study the 89-page document called An Independent Review “Protecting
the Force”, one of 3 reports created after the initial Fort Hood Shooting, whene 13 were killed, and
43 injured.

If you look at the recommendations, they are very bureaucratic and procedural.  They could have
been written by an efficiency expert, not by anyone with a background in security, and covered things
like policy changes, and having screening for clergy and psychologists, and improved mental health
programs.   These are all important, but they do not provide a secure environment.

The LAX after action analysis’ Number One recommendation was to change
the security focus to a Risk-Based approach.

 


RISK-BASED SECURITY

The problem with a reactive approach is that you can’t screen and lock down everyone. At Fort
Hood, for example, there are 80,000 individuals living on the base, and probably hundreds of
visitors who go in and out every day.  It’s impossible to assess the mental health, and the
‘intentions’ of all of them.

FortHoodAmbulances-Medium

That’s why a Risk-Based Approach works – because it focuses on the potential threats and then evaluates the existing controls to see whether they offer the required amount of protection based on the likelihood of the threat occurring.

You stop violent events by controlling access and by controlling weapons.  No matter how unpopular they are, you use metal detectors at certain points, you use security officers at key entrances, you control entrances and exits.

Once the event starts, you can improve security by having faster notification (panic alarms), ability
to block, or disable weapons and attackers, adequate transport, better emergency response, but to
avoid the violence, you need to have strong access control.

The Risk-Based approach makes use of annual risk assessments that are holistic in nature. They
are not done in stovepipes, they include the entire organizations, they include input from staff
members, visitors, students, vendors, soldiers, patients on how they see security from their point
of view, which is always dramatically different from management or administration.

A risk-based approach requires an organization to:

  • Define potential security risks.
  • Develop standardized risk assessment processes, for gathering and
    analyzing information, and use of analytical technology
  • Risk-Based Security focuses on PREVENTION OF NEW INCIDENTS
    whether they are active shooter, general violence, etc.
  • Enhances security’s ability to rapidly respond  to changes in the threat environment.

MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK

According the LAX (LAWA) after action report, “Simply adding more security does not
necessarily provide better security.  Determining priorities and where to achieve great
value for the dollars invested requires regular, systematic assessment of the likelihood
and consequences (risks) associated with a range of threat scenarios that morph and
change more quickly now than ever before. 

Collaborative engagement in a security risk assessment process across the community builds
the buy-in needed to develop and sustain a holistic security program over time. Leaders must
be open to challenging established practices and demonstrate a willingness to change direction”.

Making the switch to a Risk-Based security program is the best recommendation for those who
want to protect their staff, students, patients, vendors, clients, soldiers, and visitors from a mass
casualty event, or for all the organizations who don’t want to have a terrible incident happen in
the first place!

 Caroline Hamilton, friend of Patty Garitty (Soup Kitchen voluteer)

Caroline Ramsey-Hamilton

President, Risk and Security LLC

Caroline@riskandsecurityllc.com

 

www.securityinfowatch.com/blogs

www.riskandsecurityllc.com

After Action report on LAX Shooting Recommends Risk Assessments

Posted on by • 0 Comments

The Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) released the long-anticipated After
Action Analysis on the LAX Active Shooter Incident in 2013.

The 83-page report was written by an independent consultant who analyzed
all aspects of the Shooting incident and includes a list of “Major Observations
and Recommendations.”   The recommendations are “to provide focus for
LAWA’s efforts toward continuous improvement in it’s security and emergency
preparedness programs.  

These areas were highlighted in the report as “7 priority observations that merit
special consideration.

Recommendation 1.1:  Evolve the LAX Security Program to reflect a more
integrated assessment of security risk and provide for the ongoing development
and management of mitigation measures.

Recommendation 1.2:  Based on the RISK ASSESSMENT and updated security
plan, consider the focus and structure of security functions to determine whether
realignment and integration are needed.

Recommendation 1.3:  With the benefit of recent vulnerability and risk assessments,
take a risk-based approach to evaluating current security programs and explore
intelligent use of technology.”

Once again, doing frequent Security Risk Assessments and managing the security
program and enhancements to follow the recommendations of the Risk Assess-
ment are the first recommendations in the After Action Analysis of an Active
Shooter Incident.

In my experience, in most organizations, Facility Security Risk Assessments are
not conducted correctly, are not reported to senior management, and not used as a
tool to ADJUST AND FOCUS the security program based on RISK.

Why aren’t security risk assessments done more often?  

1.  People don’t have the right expertise to do a full risk assessment.

2.  Security managers view Security Risk Assessments are too difficult
     to undertake.

3.  Law enforcement personnel still do not understand the concept of risk 
     assessments and instead, tend to rely on checklists of controls or
     security elements, rather than integrating all the information to
     create a true Risk-Based model for security.

The solution to this problem is to use affordable, easy to use software tools, like
the Risk-Pro Application for Facilties Security Assessment  and their Risk-Pro
Application for Active Shooter Incident to simplify the process of doing more
frequent risk assessments and using them as a management tool to focus
security so it will be able to recommend the security enhancements that are
needed, and not only how MUCH to spend, but actually dictate the order
of necessary controls.

Far from being a boring, intellectual exercise, well done security risk 
assessments can dramatically reduce the possibility of an active shooter
event, and also mitigate the many negative consequences that come
from such disruptive incidents.

 

 

 

Why Workplace Violence is Always a Catastrophe

Posted on by • 0 Comments

Workplace violence incidents are one of the most damaging events that can happen to any organization.  The good news is that workplace violence is one of the few threats that companies can actually prevent before it happens.

Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, war, and explosions, workplace violent incidents can be prevented if the organization makes a commitment to educate their employees, and give them the knowledge they need to address a potential problem with a co-worker before it gets to an explosive level, for example, making the active shooter drills part of the security program.

In many ways, workplace violence is worse than other kinds of violent incidents because it always involves a major violation of trust, and it also has a malicious component, where the perpetrator is deliberating focusing on violence against a fellow human that they know personally and may have directly worked with, sometimes for year.

According to OSHA, workplace violence is a serious recognized occupational hazard, ranking among the top four causes of death in workplaces during the past 15 years. More than 3,000 people died from workplace homicide between 2006 and 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Additional BLS data indicate that an average of more than 15,000 nonfatal workplace injury cases are reported every year.

As well as the violation of trust and the violence itself, the incidents usually terrorize both the victims and other employees, especially those who know violent individual and are left to wonder how they failed to recognize the danger signs.

Some organizations report that employees, even those who weren’t hurt in an incident, exhibit PTSD-type symptoms following an incident.  And the company’s reputation is often damaged, just from the publicity of the event.

One of the main controls that protect against a violent incident, is doing a Workplace Violence Assessment.  This specialized risk assessment involves interviewing employees at all levels of the organization, looking at the OSHA guidelines, such as those detailed in OSHA 3148, (www.osha.gov/Publications//osha3148.pdf).

The assessment also includes making sure that every violent, or threatening incident gets reported in a standardized way, that all the incidents are tracked, and that there is a de-escalation process that can be easily followed to prevent someone from getting to a violent stage.

There are new programs available that automate the Workplace Violence Assessment process and make it into a simple and standardized
project.  To review a standardized, data-based, Violence Assessment Report, go to:   www.riskandsecurityllc.com/.

 

 

 

What do Benghazi and Newtown have in common? Flawed Security!

Posted on by • 0 Comments

After the attack on the Benghazi mission and the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, its apparent that what these two terrible incidents have in common is that security was not adequate.

In Benghazi, after the hearings and the pundits and speculation, the bottom line is that there was insufficient security.  In-place security controls were not sufficient to deter an attack, and the emergency controls were also not sufficient to recover and deal with the emergency attack.

In Newtown, at Sandy Hook Elementary, security was inadequate.  Security people often say that security is just as good as the weakest link, and despite adding new security controls, it was defeated because of the glass entry.  The shooter wasn’t allowed in so he simply broke the glass.  That slowed him up by 2 minutes, maybe. Also backup security controls were non-existent.  The shooter was observed and still there was no effective response.

There are three elements to security – DETER, DENY and RESPOND:

DETER – means to make the facility look too difficult to attack, and so the attacker thinks it’s too hard and goes away.

DENY – means that it is impossible for the attacker to get into the facility to launch an attack.

RESPOND/PROTECT means that after the attack is launched, the facility can defend itself, or to protect the individuals and/or property inside the facility.
Both Benghazi and Newtown did not deter, didn’t deny access, and didn’t have an adequate security response.

The Newtown shooting showed that this school, like many others across the country, had a false sense of security, because while some security elements were in place, the shooter easily entered the school, making the other elements irrelevant and  him to inflict mass casualties.

In both cases, the response was not adequate, it was ‘too little too late’.  And ‘too late’ means the attack can’t be stopped or contained.

The WHY is easy, because the security budget was inadequate.  These facilities did not have adequate risk assessments that could have demonstrated the critical assets contained within them.  What is more critical than classrooms of 6 year old children?  What is more critical than a State department facility with a U.S. ambassador inside?  Yet both didn’t have the protective security controls they deserved because their wasn’t enough budget for enough security.

Another element these incidents have in common is that they are both government facilities.  Yes, one was the Federal government and one was a local school district – but they both had the same problem of being short on budgets.  And when organizations are short on budgets, security is one of the first things to get their funding cut, or reduced.

Every facility needs a SECURITY risk assessment up front, how else can you allocate the funding and make sure that there is ENOUGH security in place to protect our most critical assets, our children?

After Aurora – Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted on by • 0 Comments

Having written several articles on gun violence and remembering exactly where I was after Columbine, I know that very few security professionals are interested in restricting access to firearms.

But clearly this is terrorism.  This is murder.  All the outcry about abortion, and protecting fetuses, and there’s not even a peep when 12 young people are gunned down, having done nothing to deserve such a vicious fate.

So what we are talking about is HOW TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC from acts of terrorism and murder.

Anyway this could have been prevented?

1.  Now we know he was under a psychiatrist’s care, he should have flunked the assault rifle purchase test.

2.  If the theatre had true locking back doors, and alerts when they were propped open, he could not have
come back inside with his arsenal.

3.  If the back door had cameras and was monitored, he could have been caught, or at least, the public address system could have warned the patrons in the theatre.

Since none of these things were done, a terrible tragedy took place.

I think we are safer with cameras everywhere and active, real-time monitoring of those cameras.  I’m all for controls like panic alarms (which should be as common as fire alarms), and for annual security assessments.

Maybe we can learn something.

Man Makes Meth in his Car in Hospital Parking Lot

Posted on by • 0 Comments

Hospital security cameras showed that a
33-year-old man was making meth in his car in the facility’s
parking lot before the vehicle became engulfed in flames.
The man was burned over 80 percent of his body and
later died of his injuries. The car, which was in the Horizon
Medical Center lot, was captured on security video that
showed the man mixing ingredients just before there was
fireball inside the car. A sheriff’s office detective working
security at Horizon requested assistance to put out the fire.
In examining the site, he noticed canisters and other possible
drug-related items in the car and called the drug task force,
according to news accounts

Outlook on Risk & Security Compliance in 2012 – What to Expect.

Posted on by • 0 Comments

This New Year’s Eve, I thought at times my neighbors were using a rocket launcher and several assault rifles to shoot up the New Year.  Lucky for me,  I spent the awake time to contemplate the outlook for risk, threat and security issues for 2012 and here’s what I see for 2012.

1.  Government-Mandated Compliance Is Here to Stay for the Healthcare Industry.

I remember when the IT departments are many hospitals thought George W. was going to revoke the HIPAA Security Rule.  It never happened, and this year, for the first time, there is a regulatory body in place that is intent on REAL ENFORCEMENT.

The Dept. of Health & Human Services, Office of Civil Rights,  has expanded HIPAA Security and Privacy Rules to include “Business Associates” including lawyers working in healthcare, and the infamous “3rd Party Providers” who do everything from warehouse data to taking over the IT function of a hospital, and this trend will continue as pressure builds from consumers who’s medical and financial data continues to be compromised.

2.  Workplace Violence Prevention will become an OSHA mandate, if not in 2012, at least by 2015.  Based on the slug-like pace of OSHA, who only recently provided directives for high risk industries, and the pressure from the more than 30 states who have passed their own regulations,  the pressure to stop the number of incidents and to lower their intensities will increase and management will be forced to address it as a major corporate issue.

3.  Pressure on the financial industry to protect consumer information will increase.  Like many other areas, pressure is increasing to prevent the enormous data breaches we saw in 2011, like Tricare, the recent Stratfor hack by Anonymous, Wikileaks and HealthNet breaches.  Consumers are the squeaky wheel and they want the convenience of plastic and internet use, and they will not tolerate breaches, and they are all registered voters!

The FFIEC has already tightened up on both risk assessment standards, as well as
authentication guidelines for all financial institutions.

 

There will be a increase in requirements for risk assessment as an accountability feature to force managers to maintain better security in all areas of their organizations. 

Accountability means that individual managers will be held responsible for the decisions they make regarding other people’s:

1.  Financial Data

2.  Medical Records

3.  Safety from both Violence & Bullying in their workplaces.

Budgets can be cut, and staff can be reduced but consumers are demanding protection of their information, and themselves, and the regulators will make sure they get it in 2012!

What’s the Risk of Backing Newt Gingrich?

Posted on by • 0 Comments

Hundreds of the shakers and movers in the Republican party AND the Democratic party are doing their risk assessments this week on who to openly support, and doing the risk calculation on whether it is better to wait and see what emerges, or make their comments/endorsements now and worry about the fall out later!

Here is the kind of risk model for politics that people use, often unconsciously- to make those decisions. Political risk is especially tricky because there are 2 stakeholders to consider:

1. what’s good for ME personally
2. what’s good for THE PARTY, DISTRICT, or COUNTRY.

Here’s a list of threats that politicians worry about in a situation like this:

1. Lose my current position
2. Lose my Power in the Party/Coalition/Media
3. Lose campaign contributions
4. Lose voters
5. Lose tea party support
6. Lose respect from peers
7. Lose future election
8. Lose income
9. Look wrong in the media
10. Create bad sound byte
11. Face Reprisals Later from Establishment
12. Lose Media Support (however it exists).

More tomorrow on how to value the assets of an ongoing campaign.

HAS 60 MINUTES EXPOSED THE SEC SECRET – No Penalties for Big Banks?

Posted on by • 0 Comments

On Sunday evening, December 5th,  60 MINUTES aired what I think is a ground-breaking bit of investigative reporting on how the SEC allowed big banks and mortgage companies to violate Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) requirements with total impunity.

Since the American public is still suffering from the mortgage meltdown – they are looking for answers and looking for punishment.  Crime and punishment usually go together in the Justice Department and law enforcement communities.

“You do the Crime – You do the Time”.

So one person is arrested for a victimless crime, like shoplifting a candy bar, but a big company, like Countrywide, or Bank of America, can crash a worldwide economy, lie on federal forms, commit perjury and saw intense financial destruction to millions of people, and they are allowed to keep the fortunes they made through this risky behavior, and, even better, there’s no jail time, no fines commensurate with crime, and no penalty for openly flaunting federal laws!!

WOW – what kind of message does this send?

For me, concerned day after day with helping organizations comply with federal mandates and laws, like SOX, and HIPAA, and OSHA, this makes a parody of compliance enforcement.

Companies spend millions of dollars to comply with these regulations, which are passed to protect the American public from exactly what just happened.  To find that the regulators are the ones who ignored the falsified attestations, forgave the lack of compliance and let these 21st century robber barons keep their ill-gotten gains makes me, and about 200 million other people, sick!

 

Why Influence/Visibility is Now the Name of the Game

Posted on by • 0 Comments

Why would a woman go public with accusations after a grope that happened fourteen years ago? I watched a woman this morning reporting her alleged incident with Gloria Allred glued to her side.

I can’t help but think — what is she getting out of this? Maybe she’s jobless and needs a new gig. Maybe she just wants her 15 minutes of fame. (By my calculations, she has used up only 8 minutes of her 15 min. fame allowance).

I started thinking whether you call it ‘FAME’, VISIBILITY”, or anything else — such as overexposure, hogging the spotlight, etc., it is the new currency and it is as potent as money.

If you don’t believe me, think about Joe the Plumber, plucked by McCain from total obscurity and now running for Senate! Just visibility is to blame for that — not intelligence, not good looks (sorry, Joe), not personal moral vision, nothing but the media minutes you can accumulate.

Lots of people get their chance, and 99 % fade back into obscurity, or become a little bigger fish in their tiny pond, but there exists with fame/visibility, an opportunity for becoming someone better.

Thining of good examples, I would have to include Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart, Eliot Spitzer, Michael Steele, the famous Russian spy girl in that group. They took their moment and ran with it.

I hope if I ever get my 5 minutes, I can do as well.