|#91bd5d60-260d-42ec-a815-5fd358f1796d;L0|#091bd5d60-260d-42ec-a815-5fd358f1796d|Cybersecurity;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Outdated Protocols and Practices Put the IoT Revolution at Risk0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465The Art of Servant Leadership|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Detention Tension|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Servant Leader Counterpoint: President Trump|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Teller Trouble|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Travel Security Handbook2017-03-01T05:00:00Z|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Four Killed In U.K. Parliament Attack2017-03-22T04:00:00Z|#91bd5d60-260d-42ec-a815-5fd358f1796d;L0|#091bd5d60-260d-42ec-a815-5fd358f1796d|Cybersecurity;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Outdated Protocols and Practices Put the IoT Revolution at Risk2017-03-24T04:00:00Z|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Book Review: Business Continuity2017-02-01T05:00:00Z|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Beyond the Active Shooter2015-01-01T05:00:00Z

Security Management

 Morning Security Brief

View RSS feed

 SM Weekly

Retrieving Data

 SM Daily

Retrieving Data
Not a Member? Join Now Security HandbookGP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>Books on Demand; available from ASIS;; 326 pages; $59 (ASIS members); $64 (nonmembers)</p><p> </p><p>Maintain a low profile and be a hard target! These words from the cover of <em>Travel Security Handbook</em> encompass the theme of this comprehensive book on staying safe while traveling. Written from a European perspective, the book emphasizes travel consciousness for both the traveler and the employer. Terrorism, natural disasters, gen­eral crime, assault, property theft, and cybercrime are touched upon, as are social, medical, and financial considerations. </p><p>Author Sven Leidel, who is based in Germany, does a good job of explaining trip planning. Documents, customs, and medical currency are explored, as well as ways to thwart crime, use of dummy wallets, documents, and modes of dress. He asks the reader to consider other peripheral issues: Did you secure your home? Who knows that you are leaving and for how long? What did you post on social media? </p><p>Data security in transit to the destination is another topic. The book explains how some data, including photos or political and religious writings, might be illegal, particularly in Islamic countries. He attempts to cover every angle regarding encryption, espionage, and ways data is stolen. </p><p>Leidel does an outstanding job covering women and security. Laws—especially in Islamic countries and India—norms, dress, self-defense, and situational scenarios are covered at length in practical and thoughtful detail. Local travel using buses, taxis, and the like are discussed with an emphasis on self-protection and recognizing potential traps. Virtual kidnapping is one of the more modern crimes the author explains. </p><p>After the trip, travelers should provide the company with a synopsis of what went on, positive and otherwise. This helps determine if aid is needed to help them readjust, or if help is needed in other ways. Further, it is used to prepare for future travel by other employees. </p><p>Overall, the work is incredibly informative; however, it may be that too much information confounds easy comprehension.</p><p>--<br></p><p><em><strong>Reviewer: William F. Eardley IV</strong> has 29 years of experience in security and corrections. He is a member of ASIS International.</em></p> and the Private SectorGP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​The news media focuses primarily on kidnapping cases involving high-profile targets such as captured journalists and soldiers, high-net-worth individuals, and children. </p><p>However, sensational depictions in film and television have created a popular perception of kidnapping that is often at odds with the reality. Kidnaps-for-ransom happen every day around the world, with rates influenced by geography, conflict, and political, economic, and social issues. Many cases go unreported and unnoticed outside their local setting. </p><p>In some parts of the world, law enforcement and security services are too ineffective to properly guide kidnap victims to a safe resolution. Eager to project strength, and frequently lacking effective training in how to peacefully resolve the situation, security forces often prioritize tactical interventions that may jeopardize the lives of the victims. And, in rare cases, they have been found to be complicit in the kidnapping. </p><p>It is into this space that third-party actors and private sector organizations can step in to offer support and assist in securing the safe release of the victim. Otherwise, absent advisory and duty-of-care structures compound the trauma of the ordeal for victims and their families. Structure provided by experts can help guide financial negotiations, manage family and employer liaisons, and arrange post-incident support, such as counseling or medical care. There may also be jurisdictional conflicts that preclude victims from getting the full support of their home or host country, or governments could simply be unable or unwilling to provide consular or legal support abroad. </p><p>Debunking the common myths surrounding kidnap-for-ransom enables a clear understanding of where there is an opening for private sector engagement and where third-party support is most required. ​</p><h4>The Kidnappers</h4><p>Although there is a common perception that militant groups carry out a large proportion of kidnaps, data from global risk consultancy Control Risks shows that only 14 percent of the kidnapping incidents that took place worldwide last year involved these groups. </p><p>This is despite the concerted kidnapping activity accompanying insecurity in places such as Libya, Iraq, and Syria, attributed particularly to ISIS, as well as renewed kidnapping activity by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in the Sahel region and the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines.  </p><p>Instead, some 85 percent of the kidnaps recorded this year by Control Risks were perpetrated by criminal elements such as organized networks, small gangs, or individuals. These are not exclusive, with current or former members of militant groups sometimes using their resources to carry out kidnaps-for-ransom purely for personal financial gain.​</p><h4>Targeted Victims</h4><p>Corporate security managers considering their organization’s exposure to kidnap risk at home and overseas often approach the issue with their employees’ specific profile in mind. </p><p>While managers may assume that a foreign or Western employee is more likely to be targeted in higher-risk regions abroad, this is not borne out by Control Risks’ kidnapping data, which shows that 97 percent of all kidnaps last year involved local victims. Furthermore, the professionals or businesspeople among those victims represented 54 different industries and were targeted in 77 different countries, illustrating the pervasiveness of the threat and lack of focus on a limited spectrum of sectors. </p><p>There are local nuances to the way in which kidnappers target victims in every state or province in a given country—the kidnapping group’s capability and the general security environment largely dictate target selection. Kidnappers often take into consideration the victim’s apparent wealth to draw a high ransom, the abduction’s chance of success, and other aspects of the victim’s profile.</p><p><strong>Wealth. </strong>Criminals who make their living from kidnapping want to maximize the income from each abduction. Individuals employed by multinational companies or in high-revenue sectors might attract the attention of kidnappers because they appear to be wealthy in the local context. Kidnappers will make assumptions about a potential victim’s social and economic standing based on simple things, such as material displays of wealth like new vehicles, whether they live in a wealthy suburb, or if their children go to a fee-paying school, for example. </p><p>Alternatively, they may have insider information. A fashion heiress kidnapped in Hong Kong in April 2015, for instance, was targeted after one of the suspects carried out renovations of the property and noticed the presence of luxury cars and goods. In another case in Nigeria in 2015, a large wedding celebration hosted by the victim was enough to prove his financial value to the kidnappers, who abducted him within the month. </p><p><strong>Risk.</strong> Having selected a target, the kidnappers could put the potential victim under surveillance to ascertain any weaknesses in his or her security. The simplest option is always to abduct the victims while they are in the open. Those who have a predictable daily routine are easy to target because the kidnappers know when and where they will be traveling. The daily commute, school run, or other regular travel can give kidnappers a variety of options. </p><p>Control Risks’ data shows that abductions most commonly occur during a routine journey to or from work, school, or home, with 35 percent of all kidnaps in 2016 taking place at this time. In southern Nigeria, for instance, kidnappers frequently strike on Sundays when families travel to and from church services at a regular time and are vulnerable in transit. </p><p>Nevertheless, kidnappers can often be deterred by even rudimentary security provisions. Anything that makes the abduction more difficult may convince them to move on to a new target.  </p><p><strong>Profiling.</strong> In some places, criminally motivated kidnappers are more likely to target local junior or middle management employees than CEOs or foreigners in the corporate context. The calculation is that, while the latter would probably yield a higher ransom, the increased risk of arrest that follows the abduction of a high-profile figure could outweigh the potential financial benefit. </p><p>However, foreign nationals are also often harder to abduct because those present in higher-risk areas generally employ more stringent security precautions and represent a much smaller slice of the population. </p><p>In other regions, usually those prone to militancy, the victim’s unique profile will not act as a deterrent, and foreigners are often the most highly sought captives. Some groups have significant capability to kidnap high-profile victims and, by taking advantage of difficult terrain and ungoverned spaces, can hold them for long periods without fear of arrest while they negotiate a ransom. </p><p>Indeed, for some of these kidnappers, increased attention, both from the government and the media, is part of their motivation to kidnap a high-profile victim for leverage and propaganda purposes.  ​</p><h4>Abduction Locations<img src="/ASIS%20SM%20Callout%20Images/0317%20Feature%204%20Infographic.jpg" class="ms-rtePosition-2" alt="" style="margin:5px;width:610px;" /></h4><p>When preplanning an abduction, kidnappers look for an easy means of escape from the immediate vicinity of the abduction and a viable safe space for the period of captivity. </p><p>The partition of Mali in 2012 and the accompanying establishment of operating space for jihadist groups in the remote northern half of the country, for instance, emboldened and enabled AQIM to significantly ramp up its kidnapping activity. The group and its affiliates operating in the western Sahel have since carried out several high-profile kidnaps of foreign nationals, including in northern Burkina Faso and Niger, within a day’s drive of safe zones in northern Mali. </p><p>The porous border and weak security presence in the area create a permissive climate in which to conduct operations, and afford AQIM and its satellite groups the time and space to plan kidnaps. In 2016 alone, at least three separate kidnaps targeting foreign nationals and launched from northern Mali were attributed to the network, including that of an Australian couple in northern Burkina Faso last January and an American aid worker in Niger in October.  </p><p>In an opportunistic abduction, the targeting process is accelerated. A typical method is to set up a roadblock and screen victims as they drive through. The kidnappers will make snap assumptions about the victims’ wealth based on the car they are driving and whether they have a driver. </p><p>They can then further question the victims and search the vehicle for confirmation of their wealth. Often people will carry some detail of their employment, such as an identity or access card, that might alert the kidnappers to their potential worth. Visibly branded vehicles, particularly in remote or poor areas, indicate that the occupants may have a higher comparative income or that there is a chance their employer would be willing to pay a ransom for their freedom, increasing the risk. </p><p>Opportunistic, ambush-style abductions are particularly common in the eastern provinces of Congo (DRC)—for example. In North Kivu province—home to a plethora of armed groups, including Rwandan rebels, local militias, and army defectors—almost all kidnaps take place at improvised roadblocks and fake checkpoints, and they frequently target convoys of vehicles. More than half of all kidnaps recorded in Congo take place in the province. Many target nongovernmental organizations and other organizations with projects in the hinterland, including construction and telecommunications firms. ​</p><h4>The Ransom</h4><p>While a ransom is not limited to a financial payment to release the victims, financial demands are most commonly made to the victims’ families or employers and can also extend to the victims’ national government or the victims themselves. </p><p>The type of ransom sought can vary greatly depending on the kidnapper’s profile—for example, militant groups often take hostages with the intention of trading them for group members in custody in a prisoner exchange. They have also been known to make other demands, such as a cessation of drone strikes or the withdrawal of enemy troops. </p><p>In a January 2016 hostage video featuring a Swiss missionary kid­napped from her residence in Timbuktu, for example, an al Qaeda–linked group specifically demanded the release of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Hadi, a militant on trial at the international criminal court in Brussels for ordering the destruction of ancient monuments and shrines in the city during its occupation by Islamist militants in 2012. Other armed groups routinely include in their demands materials useful for their future operations, such as satellite telephones, foodstuffs, vehicles, and weapons. </p><p>Sometimes less-straightforward concessions are demanded. Kidnapping is occasionally used as a last resort in cases of industrial action or as a result of a personal, business, or criminal dispute in which one party is kidnapped to compel them to pay a debt or agree to some stipulation for their release. </p><p>Control Risks has recorded several cases in Asia where kidnap is used to apply pressure on a company or vendor; these often revolve around contracting. In one 2013 case in India, for example, employees of a company kidnapped a junior staff member at another company to compel his employer to pay them money that was unforthcoming but contractually owed. </p><p>In China, the kidnap or detention of executives is a relatively common way for employees to extract concessions from their employers during labor unrest or disputes. In one such case in 2013, Chinese factory workers held their U.S. manager for five days amid a dispute over severance pay.​</p><h4>Express and Virtual Kidnappings</h4><p>Classic kidnap-for-ransom is not the only crime that companies or security managers need to consider when thinking about risks to their staff, nor is it the sole extortive crime covered by insurance policies. New forms of extortive crime have accompanied the advent of new technology. These include cyber extortion, virtual kid­napping, and express kidnapping. </p><p>Virtual kidnapping is the name given to a form of extortion that emerged in Latin America in 2004 and has since spread to many parts of the world. Notably, it has become increasingly common in Asia, particularly China.</p><p>In a virtual kidnap, a criminal typically contacts a family and claims to have abducted one of their loved ones. The criminal threatens to harm or kill the victim if a ransom is not paid. In fact, the supposed victim of a virtual kidnap is never actually held captive, but may have been forced to cooperate with the criminals or may be completely unaware of the incident. </p><p>In many cases in Mexico, the alleged kidnap victims are contacted by the extortionists and forced to isolate themselves by checking into a hotel or another location, and remaining there until told to leave. </p><p>In most countries, the crime affects local nationals, but in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Spanish-speaking business travelers are in­creasingly falling victim to the crime. Knowledge of the prevalence of this crime, and adequate preparation and training for employees who travel to areas where it is common, are crucial to mitigating the financial risk to both the individual and the company. </p><p>Express kidnapping generally involves the abduction of a victim who is forced, under threat of injury or death, to withdraw funds from ATMs. It is generally opportunistic and carried out by individuals or small, dedicated, and well-organized gangs that are often armed. </p><p>In Mexico, for example, they frequently use taxis to carry out kidnaps, posing as taxi drivers to rob the passenger. The average gain made by an express kidnapper is relatively small and the duration of captivity is generally between two and four hours. Kidnappers are attracted to express kidnapping because it allows them to avoid protracted negotiations with the victims’ families, involves little risk, and is a quick way of making money. </p><p>Foreign nationals are a favored target for express kidnappers because of their presumed wealth and the assumption that they are less likely to remain in the area during a police investigation or be able to identify the offenders. In countries like Brazil, Ecuador, and Tanzania, express kidnapping has overtaken traditional kidnapping-for-ransom. ​</p><h4>Response and Insurance </h4><p>Most reputable insurance companies that offer kidnap-for-ransom insurance have an exclusive partnership with a specialist response firm, guaranteeing their clients immediate access to expert consultants and advice in a crisis incident. </p><p>Although insurance companies offering kidnap-for-ransom coverage and private response companies have been working hand-in-hand for decades, the confidentiality inherent in the business precludes transparency around the specifics of the insurers’ role and the services the responders provide. </p><p>Good responders are defined by their independence and are trusted by their insurance partner to work towards the best possible outcome in each kidnap: the safe and timely release of the victim. It is imperative that the insurer maintains a reputation as a reliable provider, further incentivizing the safe release of a victim or successful resolution of the case. The role of the insurer should simply be to reimburse costs and expenses the responder incurs during the process of supporting and advising the policyholder. Kidnap-for-ransom policies sold by leading insurers can also include coverage for extortion, threats, missing persons, and wrongful detention cases.  </p><p>Experienced responders can provide invaluable support to the victims, their families, and their employers, particularly in places where law enforcement and crisis management institutions are unequipped or under-resourced. Above all, the private responder has an obligation to respect the wishes of the victim, their family, or the employer, and a duty to provide them with the best possible advice and course of action. The client is free to take or ignore that advice and is always the final decision maker. Responsible responders will never act unilaterally outside the course of action agreed with the client, or outside the law. </p><p>Kidnap-for-ransom is not confined to the world’s most dangerous locations or perpetrated principally by jihadis or guerrillas, nor does it predominantly target those wealthy enough to pay a large ransom. </p><p>The crime is constantly evolving and adapting to the changing security environment, and security professionals must understand the nuances and risks involved for all forms of kidnap and extortive crime to practice successful mitigation.   ​</p><p>--<br></p><p><em>Sebastian Boe is a special risks analyst responsible for conducting research and analysis on kidnapping and extortion trends in Africa within Control Risks’ Response department. ​</em></p> in LiabilityGP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​Yvonne Hiller was not having a good day. On September 9, 2010, Hiller had a quarrel with her coworkers—Tanya Renee Wilson, LaTonya Brown, and Bryant Dalton—at the Kraft Foods plant in Northeast Philadelphia where she had worked for 15 years. At a union stewards and supervisors meeting that evening, a decision was made. She was suspended and had to vacate the facility immediately.</p><p>Kraft had contracted U.S. Security Associates, a private-sector firm, to provide security for the plant, and U.S. Security Site Supervisor Damon Harris was called to escort Hiller to her vehicle and ensure that she left the property.</p><p>However, Harris did not walk Hiller to her car. He left her at the guard booth at the security gate at the entrance to the plant and allowed Hiller to walk to her vehicle, alone. But Hiller did not drive away.</p><p>Instead, she retrieved a firearm from her car and drove back to the security gate where she pointed her gun at U.S. Security Officer Marc Bentley, who was inside the guard booth, and demanded to be allowed back into the plant.</p><p>When Bentley did not open the gate, Hiller drove through it. Bentley then paced back and forth inside the guard booth, while his supervisor—Harris—ran away. Both security officers called 911 after several minutes of panic and confusion, but they failed to alert anyone else in the plant that Hiller was inside, and that she was armed.</p><p>Hiller made her way through the plant to where the union meeting had taken place earlier that evening, opened fire, and shot Wilson, Brown, and Dalton. Wilson and Brown were killed, but Dalton survived the attack.</p><p>Local law enforcement responded to the scene, taking Hiller into custody. She was eventually convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. She is currently serving a life sentence in prison.</p><p>The estates of Wilson and Brown filed a civil suit against U.S. Security and Hiller in 2015, alleging that the security company was guilty of negligence for failing to protect the people at the plant during the shooting and for failing to warn employees that Hiller was in the plant, armed with a gun.</p><p>The First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania agreed with them, granting the estates more than $46.5 million in damages—$8.02 million in compensatory damages and $38.5 million in punitive damages.</p><p>“The verdict is an important message to U.S. Security that their guards can’t simply run away in the middle of a crisis,” said Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter, P.C., which represented the Wilson and Brown families in the civil suit, in an interview with Philadelphia’s NBC local affiliate. U.S. Security did not return requests for comment on this article. </p><p>The case served as a lesson for the contract security industry that negligent behavior by officers can be a form of premises liability. Premises liability is a legal concept typically associated with personal injury cases where someone is injured by an unsafe or defective condition on someone else’s property. The classic example is a slip-and-fall case.</p><p>Kraft had contracted with U.S. Security and set forth the service agreement in written documents, outlining the security officers’ guide and post orders. </p><p>The service agreement explained that U.S. Security personnel would have administrative and operations experience in security services at a level adequate to the scope of work and would be “responsible for maintaining high standards of performance, personal appearance, and conduct,” according to court documents. </p><p>Personnel would be responsible for duties such as access control; escort services; incident reports; in-depth knowledge of facility-specific requirements, expectations, and emergency procedures; patrol service duties; alarm response; emergency and accident response; and security gate control.</p><p>The service agreement also outlined what was expected of security personnel in response to an emergency at the Kraft plant in Philadelphia. The nine-step procedure included remaining calm if the officer was witness to a threatening situation, contacting a Kraft representative immediately, calling 911 if the threat was immediate, being prepared to assist if the situation became confrontational, and noting all facts about the incident in the security log.</p><p>However, the U.S. Security officers on site that day did not follow the emergency response protocol or the service agreement to escort Hiller from the plant to her vehicle, which is why the jury sided with the plaintiffs, says Eddie Sorrells, CPP, PCI, PSP, chief operating officer and general counsel for DSI Security Services, a contract security provider based in Dothan, Alabama.</p><p>The jury initially said to U.S. Security “you failed in your responsibility contractually to make sure that this bad person got off the premises,” Sorrells explains. “You didn’t do your job. And then when the person came back and started making threats and ultimately shooting, you didn’t communicate it. You didn’t do your job to warn the people inside; you didn’t communicate there was an emergency or a shooter on the premises. All you did was call 911 and hide. And we’re going to say that wasn’t enough.”</p><p>This is why it is critical for contract security providers and their clients to draft and review policies related to security officer duties and emergency response.</p><p>“Any plans, procedures, and policies that you had in place are going to be front and center when a tragedy like the Kraft case happens—or even something far less tragic,” Sorrells says. </p><p>For contract security providers, the case illustrates the importance of reviewing background screening and training processes for security guards. One criticism in the U.S. Security case, according to court documents, was that Bentley—a relatively new security officer—was not adequately trained to know how to use the available technology to communicate that Hiller had reentered the plant with a gun.</p><p>“One of the most important lessons learned from this case is how critical training is for the security officer,” Sorrells explains. “That’s not a suggestion that U.S. Security didn’t have that; it just reinforces the need to have real policies and procedures that can be…exercised and trained on.”</p><p>The case also shines a light on another security risk that can sometimes be overlooked by contract security: high-risk terminations. While Hiller was suspended from Kraft—not fired—the same principles apply, and contract security providers should make sure that their clients know the warning signs for an individual who might be a high-risk termination and require a security escort from the facility.</p><p>The client hiring a contract security firm also has a responsibility to make sure the firm has the background, resources, and knowledge to advise them on best security practices.</p><p>“I’m fond of saying that corporations are not hiring a staffing agency; they’re hopefully hiring security experts who can come in and advise them on what is needed in terms of emergency communications, training, and internal education for your employees,” Sorrells adds. </p><p>“We have to make sure that training is there to hopefully prevent these things from happening; and even if all those efforts fail, once someone does show up with a weapon, we need to have procedures in place to make sure emergency notifications are sent out,” Sorrells says. ​</p><h4>Insider Threats</h4><p>Around 10:09 a.m. on September 8, 2013, Yale University doctoral student Annie Le swiped her security card and entered the research lab on Yale’s campus where she conducted experiments into enzymes that could have implications for cancer, diabetes, and muscular dystrophy treatments. </p><p>Later that day, a fire alarm went off in the lab, requiring everyone to evacuate the facility. But Le did not leave. And Yale University did not search the building to locate her. Eventually, when Le did not come home that night, her roommate called the authorities at Yale to report her missing.</p><p>However, authorities did not begin looking for Le until the following morning. They would not find her until five days later—on the day she was scheduled to be married—when they discovered her body stuffed into a wall in the basement of the lab facility.</p><p>Authorities would later determine that fellow laboratory technician Raymond J. Clark III had brutally assaulted and strangled Le on Sep­tember 8. He pleaded guilty to her murder and is currently serving a 44-year prison sentence.</p><p>Following his sentencing, Le’s family filed suit against Yale, alleging that it was negligent and failed to use reasonable care by hiring Clark for a position that allowed him unsupervised access to students and staff; by retaining Clark in that position; by failing to adequately supervise and monitor Clark’s activities; and by permitting Clark to work alone in remote areas of the building with Le and others.</p><p>The family also claimed that Yale was negligent for failing to inform and warn Le about the potential threat Clark posed; failing to take “reasonable steps” to provide a safe and secure environment for Le to work at the facility; failing to maintain a properly qualified and trained security staff at the lab; failing to respond to a fire alarm that sounded the same day Le was murdered; fostering an atmosphere of tolerance of sexual harassment and sexual assaults that emboldened Clark; failing to investigate Le’s unexplained disappearance; and failing to detect, prevent, or intervene in Clark’s attack and murder of Le.  </p><p>Yale denied the allegations, ABC News reported. “Yale had no information indicating that Raymond Clark was capable of committing this terrible crime, and no reasonable security measures could have prevented his unforeseeable act,” the university said. Yale later agreed to pay the Le family $3 million to settle the suit in 2016, according to the Associated Press.</p><p>Paul Slager, a lawyer for Le’s family and a partner at Silver Golub & Teitell LLP, declined to comment on the settlement but did say that the case was part of a broader trend he’s seen in negligent security cases. </p><p>“Ten years ago when people talked about negligent security it was ‘How do you keep unauthorized intruders out?’” he explains. “As a lawyer, the issues have shifted now that there has to be recognition by security professionals that just keeping intruders out doesn’t mean you’re maintaining a safe and secure environment.”</p><p>For instance, the security precautions that Yale had taken—installing security cameras and using a card access control system—were designed to keep unauthorized individuals from entering the laboratory that Le worked in. However, they were not designed </p><p>to address insider threats from those who had authorized access to the facility.</p><p>Now, there is a greater acknowledgment that sometimes the threat to employees and students is an insider threat, and there may be other ways to prevent those crimes or acts of workplace violence from taking place, Slager explains.</p><p>“Workplace violence is such a big issue, and this case had layers of workplace violence to it,” he says. “These people (Le and Clark) knew each other really well.”</p><p>One security method Slager says he’s seen more of recently is the rise in portable personal protective devices, which are designed to be carried by individuals and allow them to request help immediately.</p><p>For instance, the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut began giving all new students National Protective Systems’ Personal Alarm Locators (PALs) in 2003. When pressed, the device can pinpoint a student’s location on campus and alert campus security. </p><p>“The PAL system is only used on the main campus of the university. Your picture and location will automatically appear on two screens at the security office,” according to the university’s 2016 Annual Security and Fire Report. “Security will then respond to the location of your PAL, even if it is in motion.”</p><p>The device also provides critical health information about students in the event of an emergency. The university won the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Award in 2003 for its use of the technology to improve campus safety.</p><p>The devices have been effective at deterring crimes, and in one instance prevented a crime when there was a conflict between a man and a woman on campus, Slager says. </p><p>Because of this, Slager explains that he argued in the Le family’s suit against Yale that giving this type of personal protective device to students and employees would have been an effective way to deter or interrupt the assault on Le, which killed her.</p><p>Le worked in an isolated part of the lab facility and Yale “didn’t offer sufficient protections from coworkers or people who had proper authority to be there,” Slager says. </p><p>Because Yale and the Le family settled their suit, no damages were awarded. But in the U.S. Security Services case, the damages the jury awarded the plaintiffs were significant. The case was being appealed at the time Security Management went to press, so they may be reduced, but the high amount was initially awarded, Sorrells says, due to the loss of life and the perception that more could have been done to prevent it. ​ ​ </p> Picture of U.S. Crime GP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​“We need more transparency and accountability in law enforcement. We also need better, more informed conversations about crime and policing in this country,” ​U.S. FBI Director James Comey said when his agency issued its most recent national crime statistics late last year.</p><p>And so, the FBI is moving forward on two major initiatives toward this goal. The agency has started collecting information for its first nationwide use-of-force database. This will be an online database containing information on interactions—both nonfatal and deadly—that U.S. law enforcement officers have with the public.   </p><p>Back in 2014, the U.S. Congress passed the Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA), which required states and federal law enforcement agencies to report data to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) when civilians died during interactions with law enforcement. The DCRA also authorizes the U.S. attorney general to impose financial penalties on noncompliant states.</p><p>However, the DCRA did not require reporting for nonfatal interactions. In the absence of such a mandate, the FBI has been partnering with local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement to set up a system for national data collection about nonlethal incidents. Comey himself had repeatedly advocated for a more comprehensive use-of-force database, as he called the lack of national data on the use of force “embarrassing and ridiculous.” </p><p>The second initiative is a change in the agency’s primary crime reporting system. For years, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program has played this role, but five years down the road, the agency plans to replace it with the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).</p><p>Although the UCR system keeps track of the number of homicides, armed robberies, aggravated assaults, and other crimes, agency officials say it does not go far enough in collecting information that could give indications of why crimes occur, and what can be done to prevent them. </p><p>In contrast to the UCR, the NIBRS offers a fuller picture of incidents of crime, with information about what exactly transpired, demographic information about the people involved, the relationship between the perpetrators and victims, and specific location and time coordinates. </p><p>But as of a few months ago, only roughly a third of law enforcement agencies were reporting into NIBRIS. The FBI’s goal is to have all enforcement agencies doing so by 2021, if not sooner. To help lead the way, the FBI has started to publish more data from its field offices about such offenses as human trafficking, hate crimes, and cyber intrusions.</p><p>“Information that is accurate, reliable, complete, and timely will help all of us learn where we have problems and how to get better,” Comey said. ​ ​</p> in Executive ProtectionGP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​Although plenty of women enjoy the benefits of executive protection (EP), not many actually work in the field. And that’s a shame—because women have plenty to give in this growing industry. Following are four lessons I have learned from the real world as a woman working in executive protection. ​</p><h4>Women bring a different perspective (and go-bag gear) to EP. </h4><p>And that’s a good thing. Looking at things differently has advantages in any situation, but it can be especially important when protecting a female client. </p><p>Case in point: Like most EP agents, I carry a “go bag” wherever I travel with a client. Of course, I always bring along my personal medical kit, phone chargers, and so forth. But I also add a few things that leave my male coworkers wondering: clear nail polish, super glue, and hair ties. Really? Yes, really. Clear nail polish is worth its weight in gold if a client gets a run in her pantyhose. Super glue is invaluable if a heel snaps. Hair ties? You always need an extra hair tie. </p><p>A lot of men in EP think that it’s not our job to take care of little things like these—that they distract from the core mission to keep the client safe and secure. I’d like to add a few things to our job description as EP professionals. Beyond keeping clients safe, it’s also up to us to make sure they stay happy and productive.</p><p>Carrying a bag with items someone might need helps across the board. In addition to reducing unproductive delays and preventing embarrassment or children’s tears, it also has security advantages: we don’t need to enter unknown areas for last-minute purchases. Women are more likely to consider these needs in advance.​</p><h4>Women blend in better than men.</h4><p>Two male coworkers and I once worked a detail for a family with small children. Whenever we advanced a location, our point of contact would invariably look at the men and ask what they needed to know for security purposes. After they toured us all around, they would ask me if I had any questions pertaining to the itinerary. </p><p>I told them I had no issues, but if they had any itinerary questions they should contact the assistant who was handling the schedule. “But aren’t you the assistant?” they’d blurt. This happens nearly every time I’m with a male coworker conducting an advance. Outsiders see them as the security detail and assume that I am the assistant. </p><p>While some may find this insulting, I use it to my advantage. It’s fine with me if people think I am the nanny or assistant. This prevents them from asking too many questions or getting anxious about why security is around. It helps me blend into the background. It’s also a welcome relief to clients who sometimes want to keep a low profile and just feel “normal” instead of being surrounded by security wherever they go.​</p><h4>Women can go places men can’t.</h4><p>I can easily walk into a women’s restroom to wash my hands and find out whether the client needs help or is just chatting with someone. There’s no need to awkwardly walk into the opposite sex bathroom and look around for the principal. It’s important that protective agents can sometimes be with the principal in bathrooms, dressing rooms, and hotel suites without being inappropriate. By not disrupting the client and by blending into surroundings, female agents raise fewer eyebrows and inspire less suspicion. ​</p><h4>It’s all about the team.</h4><p>I have been extremely fortunate to work with an amazing group of people—mostly men, because there are very few other women working in the industry. The importance of having a good team cannot be exaggerated. EP is not a one-person show, it’s a team effort.</p><p>Coming into a new company and working with a new client can be daunting enough. If you have the added burden of proving your worth to male coworkers, it just gets harder. </p><p>Fortunately, all the men that I work with have been supportive, kind, and understanding of the struggles women have in the industry. They’ve helped me achieve my career goals. I have also been blessed with a team leader who works extremely hard to actualize the team. Encouraging and managing team diversity isn’t always easy, but it’s worth it. Better and stronger teams rely on each other, help each other, and support each other to keep our principals safe, productive, and happy. </p><p>It is possible to create amazing, cohesive teams that include both women and men. I hope that other women will find rewarding careers in EP with both male and female coworkers that encourage everyone on the team to grow. </p><p><em><strong>Rachael Paskvan </strong>is an executive protection agent with AS Solution and a member of the ASIS San Francisco Bay Area Chapter.</em></p> Art of Servant LeadershipGP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​Servant leaders are a revolutionary bunch–they take the traditional power leadership model and turn it completely upside down. This new hierarchy puts the people–or employees, in a business context–at the very top, and the leader at the bottom, charged with serving the employees above them. And that’s just the way servant leaders like it.</p><p>That’s because these leaders possess a serve-first mindset, and they are focused on empowering and uplifting those who work for them. They are serving instead of commanding, showing humility instead of brandishing authority, and always looking to enhance the development of their staff members in ways that unlock potential, creativity, and sense of purpose.  </p><p>The end result? “Performance goes through the roof,” says Art Barter, founder and CEO of the Servant Leadership Institute and former CEO of Datron World Communications, Inc.</p><p>“Magic happens,” agrees Pat Falotico, a former executive leader at IBM who is now CEO of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. </p><p>Experts often describe the majority of traditional business leaders as managers who mainly function as overseers of a transaction: employees maintain desired performance levels, and in exchange they receive salary and benefits. Generally, these managers are positional leaders–they derive authority simply from the fact that they are the boss.</p><p>The servant leader moves beyond the transactional aspects of management, and instead actively seeks to develop and align an employee’s sense of purpose with the company mission.</p><p>The fruits of these labors are bountiful, servant leadership advocates say. Empowered staff will perform at a high, innovative level. Employees feel more engaged and purpose-driven, which in turn increases the organization’s retention and lowers turnover costs. Well-trained and trusted staffers continue to develop as future leaders, thus helping to ensure the long-term viability of the organization. </p><p>To reap these fruits, several things need to happen, experts say. Servant leadership ultimately starts with an unselfish mindset. “If you have selfish motivations, then you are not going to be a good servant leader. It has to be less about you,” Falotico says. Moreover, the organization at large needs to sustain a workplace culture in which this type of leadership can thrive. Finally, there are behaviors that the servant leaders themselves must practice on a regular basis. “As leaders, we can say anything we want, but we’re going to be judged on our behavior,” Barter says. And for the servant leader, behavior isn’t just what gets done, but how it gets done.</p><p>This article, based on several expert and practitioner interviews and recent research in the leadership field, explores the art and practice of servant leadership–its philosophy and goals, as well as best practice guidance for security leaders who aspire to become great servant leaders. We also take a look forward, and explore servant leadership’s impact on the future of leadership.​</p><h4>Origins and Applications</h4><p>Servant leadership can be considered something of a universal concept, because it has roots in both Eastern and Western cultures, researchers say. In the East, leadership scholars point to Chinese philosophers in 5th century BC such as Laozi, who asserted that when the best leaders finished their work, their people would say, “we did it ourselves.”</p><p>In modern-day leadership circles, the concept gained much currency with Robert Greenleaf’s 1971 essay, The Servant as Leader. Greenleaf, who passed away in 1990, went on to found the Atlanta-based Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Falotico now leads the center, after spending 31 years at IBM.</p><p>In practice, Southwest Airlines, under the direction of founder Herb Kelleher, is frequently cited as the model servant leadership corporation. Kelleher’s philosophy of putting employees first resulted in a highly engaged, low-turnover workforce and 35-plus consecutive years of profitability, an unheard-of record in the turbulent airline industry </p><p>Barter, who now leads the California-based Servant Leadership Institute, came to the concept by a circuitous path–working for companies that did not follow its practices. “I spent 20 to 25 years working at public companies that believed in the power model–it was all about what you could do for me in this quarter,” he says. He then became acquainted with the work of management expert and servant leader advocate Ken Blanchard. In 2004, when Barter became the CEO of Datron, a tactical communications equipment supplier, he was determined to head the firm as a servant leader. The results were dramatic. The company’s revenue grew from $10 million to $200 million in six years.</p><p>As a veteran business executive for many different companies, Barter is familiar with corporate security operations and departments, and he believes that the servant leadership model is a great fit for security leaders who are charged with protecting people and assets. He explains it this way: security managers must sometimes make quick and informed operational decisions, such as when a breach is suspected. A servant leader will do this, and will then use those decisions as educational tools, analyzing them in discussions with staff, and soliciting their opinions and ideas. This becomes a win-win-win situation: it builds trust between manager and staff, it helps employees develop as security professionals, and it enables the manager to gain new perspectives on security issues.  ​</p><h4>Best Practices</h4><p>Experts offer a range of best practice suggestions for security leaders who aspire to become successful servant leaders. Most experts agree, however, on one bedrock principle: successful servant leadership starts with a leader’s desire to serve his or her staff, which in turn serves and benefits the organization at large. This serve-first mindset can be put into practice from the beginning, during an employee’s onboarding phase, says Michael Timmes, a leadership expert and consultant and coach with the national human resources provider Insperity.</p><p>During onboarding, after the initial introductions, getting-acquainted conversations, and explanations about how security operations work, the servant leader should solicit the new hire’s observations, impressions, and opinions, Timmes says. This conveys the message, from the onset, that the employee’s thoughts are valued. </p><p>And from that point, the servant leader keeps a continual focus on talent development. “They take folks early in their careers, and think of them as the leaders of the future,” Timmes explains. He approvingly cites one expert’s view that if a manager is not spending at least 25 percent of his or her time developing future leaders, then “you’re really not fulfilling your responsibilities as a leader.” </p><p>The servant leader can enhance this talent development process in several ways. For Barter, one of the keys is to leverage the employees’ strengths. Often, an employee’s highest performance is on tasks they are most passionate about, yet some managers never find this out. “We don’t take the time to ask them—‘What do you really want to do? What really excites you?’” Barter says. </p><p> Another way to enhance the talent development process is to selectively relinquish power, so that employees can lead certain projects and take ownership of initiatives. “Giving up power, and having others lead—that builds confidence in people,” Timmes says. </p><p>This can be tricky for some leaders because they equate leadership with control and they feel they should be responsible for everything. But therein lies a paradox—leaders that are able to let go often find that they are actually in more control, because they have harnessed the resources and talents of their staff, which collectively can guide operations more effectively than one person can, he explains.</p><p>This is a crucial requirement for effective servant leadership, says Falotico. She tells leaders to “get over yourself” and realize that business objectives, whatever they are, will not be reached without sharing the load and responsibility. “You are no longer an individual performer–you are a leader,” she says. “Leaders are enablers. That’s your work.” ​</p><h4>Question Close, Listen Closer</h4><p>If serving staff is the bedrock principle of servant leadership, two core practices toward achieving that goal are close listening and searching questions.  </p><p>Darryl Spivey, a senior faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) who coaches executives on servant leadership, says that asking the right questions is the “secret sauce” of great coaching, and is crucial for servant leaders. CCL is a leadership development institute with offices around the world, including China, Ethiopia, India, Russia, and several U.S. cities.  </p><p>Servant leaders build relationships with staff primarily by listening closely and by asking many questions—on anything from the employee’s background to detailed queries about their assessment of the firm’s business environment, Spivey explains. If an employee is struggling, leaders should ask questions about what might be impeding his or her progress. Even questions about smaller aspects of operations, such as the best use of time during meetings, are helpful. “The message this sends to the individual is that their opinion does matter, and that [leaders] want their feedback,” he says. </p><p>And the emphasis on questions works both ways. Employees should feel comfortable asking the servant leader questions without worrying that the leader will feel badgered, threatened, or implicitly criticized, Spivey says. Such questions help drive the development and growth of the employee. </p><p>Carefully asking questions is related to another crucial practice–listening to understand. This means listening to the employee silently and making an active effort to understand his or her point of view. Even if the leader feels the need to disagree or interject, they will wait until the person is finished speaking. If need be, the leader can briefly summarize what the employee has just expressed, as a way to communicate understanding. </p><p>While this may strike some as merely common courtesy, listening to understand is becoming harder with the rise of technology and the decrease of attention spans, experts say. For example, a leader who keeps the iPhone on the desk, and glances at it repeatedly during conversations, is not listening to understand. ​</p><h4>Encouragement, Humility, Trust </h4><p>Servant leaders can do more than listen to staff: they can encourage them. Indeed, in many ways encouragement is the hallmark expression of a servant leader, and it is a tremendously powerful tool, experts say. </p><p>Whatever the type of interaction with staff, servant leaders are consistent in showing encouragement and humility with an egalitarian attitude. “They don’t think of themselves as any better than anybody else,” Timmes says. In practice, this means that when employees make mistakes, the leader isn’t treating them as children who need to be scolded. “Some say, ‘aren’t you going to sit down and discipline them?’ But that’s not really a good leadership approach,” he explains. </p><p>Instead, the servant leader engages in respectful conversation which demonstrates trust in the employee to make the needed adjustments.</p><p>Trust is both a defining characteristic and defining outcome of servant leadership, says Stephen M.R. Covey, former CEO of the Covey Leadership Center and author of The Speed of Trust. </p><p>To Covey, it’s important to remember that servant leaders are both servants and leaders. “You do serve, but it still requires the other dimensions of leadership–character and competence,” he says. Competence means that the leader has a track record of high ability and achieving results, with skills that are relevant. Character means that results and accomplishments are achieved with integrity and ethics. </p><p>Trust is a prerequisite for servant leaders, because the leaders must trust that the employees are worth serving, and that they, and the organization, will benefit from their service. Practicing servant leadership generates trust in the employees, who may be inspired by their manager’s competence and character and convinced by their manager’s serve-first practice that he or she has their best interests at heart. “Trust is one of the means to achieve servant leadership, and it is also an end that is achieved by servant leadership,” Covey says.   ​ ​​</p>


​06 - 07 March 2017
CPP & PSP Review Program​ (Education, Boston MA)

06 - 09 March 2017
ASIS Assets Protection Course (Education, Boston MA)

08 March 2017
CPTED: Stop Talking About It and Live It! (​Webinar)​​

22 March 2017
Comprehensive Active Shooter Incident Management (Webinar)

22 March 2017
Trade Secrets: Implementing an Innovation Protection Program (Webinar)

05 April 2017
Preparing Your Healthcare Facility for All Hazards (Webinar)

19 April 2017
ADA Compliance for Security Professionals (​Webinar)

23 - 25 April 2017
10th Annual CSO Summit ​​(Conference, Arlington, VA)

​08 - 09 May 2017
Active Shooter (Education, Las Vegas, NV)

08 - 09 May 2017
Executive Protection (Education, Las Vegas, NV​)​

​More Events>>​​​