Here we go again...
Politicking and fear tactics prevail in stopping progressive legislation. I am honestly very tired and upset about the misinformation campaigns from my "self-proclaimed" conservative brethren regarding the now dead immigration bill. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, unless they speak Spanish…"
Both as a political participant and as a security professional, I am extremely dismayed by the actions and strong support garnered by the fanatical right-wing talking heads. What they don't get, and never got, was that a comprehensive border security bill must go hand-in-hand with a true immigration reform package. It will never be more cut and dry than that.
The not-so-understated racism and fear-mongering set out by the right was downright offensive. The actions by the 53 senators voting against this bill was a move away from pragmatism and their constitutional duty to create legislation that actually addresses the nation's issues. With no alternative measures being brought forward (Mr. Tancredo), we have ruined our first chance of addressing a problem that has a real chance of hurting our economy and national security. We have waited 21 years for our legislators to move on this issue, and at a time when both the congress and senate are sitting at all-time low approval ratings, our politicians pander to the talk-show hosts and far wings of the right and left without working towards the center on a bill that the majority of this nation is actually for.
I am well versed with this legislation, and after studying each twist and turn for the past two years, I can confidently say this was a path forward -- comprehensive border security, a national ID program with biometric identifiers, and most importantly a way to deal with the "real" problem of 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Bipartisan efforts, collaboration with the executive branch, DHS, and the Commerce Department are things you can't simply dismiss with a one-word backlash like "amnesty."
Please don't come at me with the "unfair for those who didn't break the law" argument. Be realistic here -- if there is not a concrete way to incentivize the current base of illeagls in this country, we will not be able to properly identify and deal with the problem head on. No one is offering citizenship "willy-nilly." Rather, the restrictions imposed on those for vying for full citizenship were very much a life-trial and hardship. Z-Visas are not green cards. Rather, they are simply a way to acknowledge the strong economic impact these workers currently have on our macro-economy. A Z-Visa holder would have to go through red tape and massive document trails (all feeding a centralized database) as well as fines of over $5,000 (a true test for individuals making minimum wage and below). Finally, these people would not benefit from their past discretions; instead they would be taxed, contribute to our national economy, and all the while be forced to the back of the "citizenship" line.
Twenty-one years ago, we did not have the technology to implement a comprehensive tracking program for immigration to the US. No biometric technologies could be employed, no rapid communication systems for transferring large amounts of data, and no real implementation schemas to hold, host, and mine that data. That is not the case now. We have the technology... we just don't have the vision to use it.
To the 53 senators, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, and all of the others espousing fear and radical loss of national sense, I ask: What do we do now? Can you provide us with a plan that will garner support and realistically address a problem such as this? And most-importantly, when did our great nation become so fragile that bilingual education can threaten our very existence?
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
AMPS Sunset delay is rejected
The FCC agreed not to extend the “sunset” date for critical AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System) equipment that provides alarm communications relays in a substantial amount of security installations. The current deadline date remains set for February 18, 2008.
According to Wikipedia, “AMPS is a first-generation cellular technology that uses separate frequencies, or "channels", for each conversation. It therefore requires considerable bandwidth for a large number of users. In general terms, AMPS is very similar to the older "0G" IMTS service, but uses considerably more computing power in order to select frequencies, hand off conversations to POTS lines, and handle billing and call setup.”
In the security industry, AMPS was typically used as auxiliary or redundant communications means to relay alarm data to central stations. A more in-depth article regarding this news can be found at SecurityInfoWatch.com
According to Wikipedia, “AMPS is a first-generation cellular technology that uses separate frequencies, or "channels", for each conversation. It therefore requires considerable bandwidth for a large number of users. In general terms, AMPS is very similar to the older "0G" IMTS service, but uses considerably more computing power in order to select frequencies, hand off conversations to POTS lines, and handle billing and call setup.”
In the security industry, AMPS was typically used as auxiliary or redundant communications means to relay alarm data to central stations. A more in-depth article regarding this news can be found at SecurityInfoWatch.com
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Campus Security
Campus security remains a high topic of discussion this week through all the major news outlets. Collectively, we share the deepest of sympathies for the victims and families of the tragedy that occurred earlier this week at Virginia Tech.
As a result, I would like to address the issue of educational security. It should be noted I am not addressing the specific issues that occurred at Virginia Tech, rather looking at the topic from a wide lens to highlight areas worth focusing on at every campus. I have, however, analyzed the events at Virginia Tech and have found similarities to events at quite a few campuses including my own experiences in 1996 at Johns Hopkins University, which included the shooting death of a fellow student, Rex Chao.
In order to address the needs, we need to understand what barriers stand in our way from properly securing campus environments. Campus security is not an easy task. You need to secure a wide area, enforce policy, and yet enable personnel movement between areas. You want to create an environment that exudes safety while offering the perspective of freedom for thoughts and interaction between the inhabitants and outside guests.
The threats/risks are varied. We must account for individual and group safety at all times. The threats can stem from common theft and burglary to violent crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, or even disorderly conduct that could lead to injury. The more possible threats, the greater the security “net” has to be. Enhanced Video, Analytics, Call-Boxes, Access Control are all measures that need to be evaluated and implemented.
With all that said, the biggest area of concern as a security professional is communication, both between security personnel and with security devices. Educational campuses share similarities with large corporate campuses by their need for efficient communication. Too many times today, as campuses expand, we find a “hodgepodge” of technologies in place as a result of disparate funding to separate departments each running their own mini-security operations center. This variance in technologies and systems creates problems when attempting to respond to a threat. Not only do the systems not communicate, but as a result of their make-up, they require individual policies for implementation. Therefore, we have separate systems working with numerous implementation procedures and varying triggering policies.
Campuses need to address centralizing their security procedures and security technologies. Security Management Systems that enable the integration of various technologies to create a standard protocol are essential for threat management.
As a result, I would like to address the issue of educational security. It should be noted I am not addressing the specific issues that occurred at Virginia Tech, rather looking at the topic from a wide lens to highlight areas worth focusing on at every campus. I have, however, analyzed the events at Virginia Tech and have found similarities to events at quite a few campuses including my own experiences in 1996 at Johns Hopkins University, which included the shooting death of a fellow student, Rex Chao.
In order to address the needs, we need to understand what barriers stand in our way from properly securing campus environments. Campus security is not an easy task. You need to secure a wide area, enforce policy, and yet enable personnel movement between areas. You want to create an environment that exudes safety while offering the perspective of freedom for thoughts and interaction between the inhabitants and outside guests.
The threats/risks are varied. We must account for individual and group safety at all times. The threats can stem from common theft and burglary to violent crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, or even disorderly conduct that could lead to injury. The more possible threats, the greater the security “net” has to be. Enhanced Video, Analytics, Call-Boxes, Access Control are all measures that need to be evaluated and implemented.
With all that said, the biggest area of concern as a security professional is communication, both between security personnel and with security devices. Educational campuses share similarities with large corporate campuses by their need for efficient communication. Too many times today, as campuses expand, we find a “hodgepodge” of technologies in place as a result of disparate funding to separate departments each running their own mini-security operations center. This variance in technologies and systems creates problems when attempting to respond to a threat. Not only do the systems not communicate, but as a result of their make-up, they require individual policies for implementation. Therefore, we have separate systems working with numerous implementation procedures and varying triggering policies.
Campuses need to address centralizing their security procedures and security technologies. Security Management Systems that enable the integration of various technologies to create a standard protocol are essential for threat management.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Protection design offers insight to border security
We’ve been addressing immigration policy in the national press for the past few years, trying to find a balance between protectionism and our “melting-pot” heritage. For me, understanding the complexities of our current system is somewhat mindboggling, but it does offer some intriguing thoughts.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Security "Grows-up" in '07
Is the security industry maturing right before our eyes? Maybe. Sure, security itself is as old as dirt, but as a private industry it did not truly begin to evolve until after World War II. The introduction of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) was not even formed until 1956.
So how is it maturing in 2007? Well let’s analyze this past week’s ISC-West (International Security Conference) trade show in Las Vegas. The keynote was delivered by Guido Jouret, Chief Technology Officer of Cisco, and one of the highlight booths (at least for me) was none other than International Business Machines, commonly referred to as simply IBM. I dare say this is what the pundits might call CONVERGENCE. Are we finally seeing the big money IT firms take a stake in the Security industry?
Of course we are. The big money goes where big money can be made. Security, as a corporate industry, is now a player in B2B services. It has always been there, but with the events and technology development of the past 10 years, card access and CCTV monitoring has moved from a luxury to an absolute necessity. Throw in analytics, biometrics, and data-mining and it is a no-brainer to see IT take a vested interest in this evolving sector.
Thus, let’s ponder the technology on display at this year’s show.
Analytics, the term is as broad as employee-management. Every company with a camera and a digital recorder is touting their latest analytic package. This means the ability to “analyze” and to some extent interpret the digital data from video to illicit a response. Although it is not limited to video, as there are some progressive employee-management companies also using analytics to mine data from traffic patterns and access groupings, it is most commonly associated with the video side of security.
That being said, I was impressed with the ability of a couple of companies and their "analytic" development. One such company is Agent Vi (pronounced “Vee-I”) or Agent Video Intelligence. Formerly Aspectus, Agent Vi is the result of a calculated branding effort to stress true Video Intelligence without most of the price barriers associated with video analytics.
Of course, all of us in the industry should be cognizant of the movements made by Cisco since their acquisition of SyPixx in ’06. Their IP cameras have been designed with network security and bandwidth restraints in mind (see Security InfoWatch story).
Another video company that gets “it” when talking about convergence is IPVision (http://www.ipvisionsoftware.com/). This is a little company with some very big goals and unlimited potential. Look out for these guys and their top notch “edge” device management ability.
Finally, check out these other links for more info on this year's show.
www.SecurityDreamer.com
www.SecurityInfoWatch.com
www.ISCWest.com
So how is it maturing in 2007? Well let’s analyze this past week’s ISC-West (International Security Conference) trade show in Las Vegas. The keynote was delivered by Guido Jouret, Chief Technology Officer of Cisco, and one of the highlight booths (at least for me) was none other than International Business Machines, commonly referred to as simply IBM. I dare say this is what the pundits might call CONVERGENCE. Are we finally seeing the big money IT firms take a stake in the Security industry?
Of course we are. The big money goes where big money can be made. Security, as a corporate industry, is now a player in B2B services. It has always been there, but with the events and technology development of the past 10 years, card access and CCTV monitoring has moved from a luxury to an absolute necessity. Throw in analytics, biometrics, and data-mining and it is a no-brainer to see IT take a vested interest in this evolving sector.
Thus, let’s ponder the technology on display at this year’s show.
Analytics, the term is as broad as employee-management. Every company with a camera and a digital recorder is touting their latest analytic package. This means the ability to “analyze” and to some extent interpret the digital data from video to illicit a response. Although it is not limited to video, as there are some progressive employee-management companies also using analytics to mine data from traffic patterns and access groupings, it is most commonly associated with the video side of security.
That being said, I was impressed with the ability of a couple of companies and their "analytic" development. One such company is Agent Vi (pronounced “Vee-I”) or Agent Video Intelligence. Formerly Aspectus, Agent Vi is the result of a calculated branding effort to stress true Video Intelligence without most of the price barriers associated with video analytics.
Of course, all of us in the industry should be cognizant of the movements made by Cisco since their acquisition of SyPixx in ’06. Their IP cameras have been designed with network security and bandwidth restraints in mind (see Security InfoWatch story).
Another video company that gets “it” when talking about convergence is IPVision (http://www.ipvisionsoftware.com/). This is a little company with some very big goals and unlimited potential. Look out for these guys and their top notch “edge” device management ability.
Finally, check out these other links for more info on this year's show.
www.SecurityDreamer.com
www.SecurityInfoWatch.com
www.ISCWest.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
