|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a434446510 Factors to Consider in Designing Vehicle Checkpoints2015-05-28T04:00:00Z0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Los Nuevos Reclutados2015-05-29T04:00:00Z|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Security Market Growth Continues2015-05-15T04:00:00Z|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Global Defense of the Food Supply2015-06-01T04:00:00Z|#3795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e;L0|#03795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e|Security by Industry;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a434446560 Years: ASIS in the 1980s2015-06-01T04:00:00Z|#3795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e;L0|#03795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e|Security by Industry;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a434446560 Years: 60 Milestones2015-01-01T05:00:00Z|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Shots Fired2015-02-01T05:00:00Z|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465Live Chemical Agent training2015-05-04T04:00:00Z’s-Perspective.aspxGP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465An Insider’s Perspective|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465The New Recruits2015-04-01T04:00:00Z

Security Management

 Morning Security Brief

View RSS feed

 SM Weekly

Retrieving Data

 SM Daily

Retrieving Data
Not a Member? Join Now Defense of the Food SupplyGP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">More than 16 percent of the food consumed in the United States is imported, and it’s the job of the Food and Drug Admin­istration (FDA) </span><span style="line-height:1.5em;">to make sure those imports are safe and properly labeled. There are protections in place to inspect and govern the flow of imported food, but contaminated goods still enter the national supply chain.</span></p><p>One in six people are affected by food-borne diseases in the United States each year, and contaminated food leads to an average of 3,000 deaths annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Through numerous laws and regulations the government is attempting to mitigate threats and keep the food supply safe.​</p><h4>Food Defense</h4><p>After a jump in incidents of food-borne illnesses in the 2000s, President Barack Obama signed the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, which aims to develop a global approach for ensuring the safety and security of the food supply. The act aims to give the FDA greater oversight of the food being imported into the United States. </p><p>The FSMA continues to evolve, and the FDA is currently focused on protecting food against intentional adulteration—acts intended to cause large-scale public harm through contamination of food. The proposed rule, which was made public at the end of 2013, has undergone a series of revisions and is on schedule to be finalized this year.</p><p>The rule would require at-risk food facilities to create and implement food defense plans that address areas of vulnerability the FDA identifies within its food operation, says Zak Solomon, a former FDA employee. Solomon is now the director of analysis at Food Sentry, an organization that provides ongoing analysis of risks to the food supply. </p><p>Under the new regulations, facilities would devise actionable procedures to reduce the risk of adulteration during bulk liquid transportation, liquid storage and handling, secondary ingredient handling, and mixing. Implementing focused mitigation strategies, monitoring the procedures, verifying that all processes are being conducted correctly, training, and recordkeeping would also be required.</p><p>“These focused mitigation strategies would protect food against intentional adulteration, which is where the FDA is hanging its hat from the food security standpoint,” Solomon explains. “That refers to economic adulteration or adulteration by disgruntled employees, or someone with something against the companies.” </p><p>Solomon notes that food adulteration with the intent to harm the public—an act of terrorism—is unlikely. However, economic adulteration, where cheaper ingredients or extra preservatives are added to a product, is one of the biggest problems he sees in the food supply chain.</p><p>“When it comes to risks for food, adulteration is a big deal,” he says. “The economically motivated adulteration is very real and it is powerful. People look for opportunities within their supply chains all the time, whether they’re a manufacturer or a farmer, and I don’t know that there’s any other risk that provides such a clear and real danger as that does.”</p><p>Solomon says that building a food defense plan is currently optional for manufacturers and distributors under the FDA, so a mandatory requirement would be a good first step to strengthen food safety. But he notes that the global food system is extremely dynamic, and a more proactive approach that considers the evolving threat landscape would be more effective. There is also no oversight mechanism, which FDA officials or other federal regulators would use to make sure that facilities are complying with the rule.</p><p> “I’m not sure about the ability of a written food defense plan as outlined in the legislation to handle such a dynamic system, simply because even if somebody submits a food defense plan, who’s going to be there to check that they’re actually doing what they put forward in the plan?” Solomon says.</p><p>To proactively identify risks in the food supply chain, Food Sentry analyzes the political and social situation in the country exporting the food, the reputation of the company, and whether workers would have any reason to adulterate the supply. Solomon says he thinks the FSMA rule can do more to promote this type of forward thinking. </p><p>“Having a plan in place is great, but if you’re not out there looking for risks as they exist in the real world, then you’re going to have to wait to see if something happens and hopefully your plan will catch it,” Solomon says.</p><p>The likelihood of a terrorist tainting the global food supply is small, but the potential is there, Solomon stresses. “Even though we haven’t seen it happening, there’s a reason we’re incorporating it into our risk assessments because it’s possible, and if it happens it would be terrible, especially if nobody was paying attention,” he says.​</p><h4>Import Protections</h4><p>The FDA works with U.S. Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry to scan targeted or high-risk products, but when it comes to imported food, the first line of defense is overseas. Over the past decade, the FDA has set up 13 foreign offices in high-export regions to oversee the facilities that manufacture and process food. </p><p>The FSMA has enhanced the FDA foreign offices’ oversight of imported food. Under the act, each foreign office is required to build working relationships with local regulatory agencies, gather and assess information to better understand the regional regulatory landscape, and conduct inspections at high-risk food facilities. The FSMA required the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign facilities by the beginning of 2012, and to inspect at least twice the number it inspected during the previous year. </p><p>But a recent Government Accounta­bility Office (GAO) report found that the FDA has not been able to keep pace with the FSMA targets. In 2011, the agency conducted 1,002 foreign food inspections, exceeding the FSMA requirement. However, the number of inspections has not doubled over the following years—in 2012, 1,343 inspections were completed (a 34 percent increase); 1,403 inspections were conducted in 2013 (a 4 percent increase over 2012); and 1,323 inspections took place in 2014 (a 6 percent decrease from 2013). The FDA should conduct at least 2,806 inspections of foreign facilities in 2014, the report notes. </p><p>“While the FSMA has set certain targets, the actual inspections that FDA is conducting is much lower,” says J. Alfredo Gomez, the director of GAO’s Natural Resources and Environment division. “It’s actually why we recommended FDA really needs to do an assessment to determine what should be the annual number of foreign inspections that would be sufficient to ensure that the imported food is safe.”</p><p>The report found that foreign officials cited the cost of inspections and lack of funding for not being able to meet the FSMA mandate. “FDA officials told us that the agency has not met—and is not planning to meet—the FSMA mandate,” the report states. “They questioned the usefulness of conducting the number of inspections mandated by the FSMA.”</p><p>A Congressional Budget Office assessment found that the FSMA mandate needed $580 million in funding to be effective, but Congress has doled out less than half that amount to the FDA. </p><p>The lack of funding and low number of inspections aren’t the only problems the FDA’s foreign offices are facing. The GAO report also found that 44 percent of positions at the nine remaining foreign offices—four offices have been closed in the past three years—are vacant. Gomez points out that the problem is not new.This GAO report is a follow-up to a 2010 report on the FDA, in which the GAO recommended that the FDA develop a workforce plan to fill the vacancies. </p><p>“We do note that the FDA has not done a great job there, because there are large numbers that are still vacant,” Gomez explains. “FDA has not yet developed this workforce plan, and we call out the need for that.” </p><p>Foreign food facility inspections are primarily conducted by FDA officials based in the United States, although there has been a rise in the number of inspections performed directly by the foreign office staff, Gomez notes. These inspections by overseas staff barely make a dent, though, because a large portion of the vacant positions are for food inspectors. </p><p>Does the subpar performance of the overseas FDA offices spell disaster for food safety in the United States? It’s hard to say, according to Gomez: “Essentially, we don’t really know the extent to which the foreign offices contribute to the safety of imported food because FDA has not developed performance measures that can demonstrate the contributions to the safety of food,” he says. </p><p>The report found that FDA officials determined that conducting foreign inspections was not the best use of agency funds and instead focused on helping manufacturers comply with FSMA rules as well as developing relationships with foreign officials. </p><p>“FDA has not conducted an analysis to determine whether either the required number of inspections in the FSMA mandate or the lower number of inspections it is conducting is sufficient to ensure” the safety of imported food, the report notes. </p><p>“We point out FDA has asked for fund‑­ing for about 1,200 inspections each year,” Gomez says. “Reading between the lines, the FDA is saying they don’t have enough funding, but only requests flat funding for three years. You have to square those two statements and say, perhaps you should do a study to determine whether those 1,200 inspections are indeed what you should be doing.”</p><p>The majority of FDA’s foreign offices listed building relationships as a top priority, while only four considered conducting inspections as a top priority. Gomez says FDA officials were able to list a number of times where relationships with foreign food officials contributed to the safety of imported food, but the results are not easy to quantify.</p><p>“If you’re not going to keep up with the FSMA, it should be on solid analytical ground for not doing so,” Gomez explains. “Our recommendation is tied to them getting on solid ground for the number of foreign inspections that they do. We’re not going to trade this problem away, as there’s an increasing number of food imports. We’re not going to grow out of this problem.” </p> 2015 SM OnlineGP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<h4>​MEDICAL ID THEFT</h4><div>In 2014, more than 2 million victims were affected by medical identity theft, an increase of nearly half a million victims compared with 2013, according to <em><a href="" target="_blank">The Fifth Annual Study on Medical Identity Theft</a></em>, a report commissioned by the Medical Identity Fraud Alliance, a public-private partnership aimed at reducing medical identity fraud. For the healthcare consumer, this type of identity theft can be expensive. According to the study, 65 percent of medical ID theft victims paid more than $13,000 to resolve the crime. The study was supported by Kaiser Permanente, ID Experts, Experian Data Breach Resolution, and Identity Finder, LLC, and was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.​</div><div><br> </div><h4>CYBERSECURITY AND THE LAW</h4><div>A new study—<em><a href="/ASIS%20SM%20Documents/The-Emergence-of-Cybersecurity-Law.pdf">The Emergence of Cybersecurity La</a>​</em>w—looks at cyber law as a growing field for legal practitioners and the roles that lawyers are playing in responding to corporate cybersecurity threats.</div><div><br> </div><h4>FOOD SAFETY</h4><div>The Food and Drug Administration is in charge of making sure the food that’s imported into the United States is safe and inspected. A <a href="" target="_blank">Government Accountability Office report​</a> raises concerns that the FDA’s foreign offices are not conducting enough food inspections. </div><div><br> </div><h4>VEHICLE SECURITY</h4><div>Most new cars have wireless technology that could make them vulnerable to hacking or privacy intrusions, according to <em><a href="">Tracking & Hacking​</a></em>, a report by U.S. Senator Ed Markey’s staff. </div><div><br> </div><h4>HACKING VEHICLES</h4><div>In a <a href="/ASIS%20SM%20Documents/remote%20attack%20surfaces.pdf">report released at Black Hat 2014</a>, researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek detail the vulnerabilities in the computer components of a variety of vehicles that could allow hackers to gain control of the vehicle.</div><div><br> </div><h4>DISCRIMINATION</h4><div>The <a href="" target="_blank">U.S. Supreme Court ​</a>allowed a woman suing for pregnancy discrimination to take her case back to court because she deserved another chance to prove that the company had treated her differently from other protected workers.</div><div><br> </div><h4>WHISTLEBLOWERS</h4><div>A <a href="" target="_blank">federal appeals court denied</a> a man’s petition of a claim to a whistleblower award as he submitted information to the Securities and Exchange Commission before the law in question was enacted. </div><div><br> </div> 2015 Industry NewsGP0|#3795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e;L0|#03795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e|Security by Industry;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<h4>​Watching Over the Race</h4><p>The 2014 TCS New York City Marathon was a mammoth event, with more than 50,000 runners and another 2 million onlookers. Sponsored by Tate Consulting Services (TCS), it was organized by New York Road Runners. The race course wound through Central Park, where runners were often hidden from view by trees and buildings. </p><p>The organizers depended on a team of security partners to deploy a wireless surveillance network along the route. Sony cameras and Network Video Technologies transmitters were linked with Firetide wireless mesh nodes to the Race Command Center, where a Milestone XProtect Smart Wall displayed 36 simultaneous camera views. Centennial Security Integration assisted with installation, and VIRSIG LLC configured and deployed the network.</p><h4>PARTNERSHIPS AND DEALS</h4><p><strong>The University of Southern California</strong> is using software from <strong>Armorway</strong> to enhance planning for campus security. The software applies game theory to analytics to generate unpredictable security plans.</p><p><strong>Blue Coat Systems</strong> will integrate machine learning analytics from <strong>Prelert </strong>into its portfolio of security solutions to detect abnormal behaviors.</p><p><strong>Boon Edam </strong>has installed a revolving door for access to the<strong> Burj Khalifa At the Top Sky</strong> observation deck in Dubai.</p><p><strong>CertainSafe</strong> has announced a partnership with <strong>Express Notary Services</strong> to provide data protection for mobile notaries.</p><p><strong>Diebold, Incorporated,</strong> and <strong>Eagle Eye Networks, Inc</strong>., have formed a strategic alliance to deliver cloud-based video services.</p><p>The law firm<strong> Updike, Kelly & Spel­lacy P.C</strong>. is using a solution from <strong>Good Technology</strong> for mobile security, productivity, and compliance.</p><p><strong>Honeywell </strong>has named<strong> Apex Investigation & Security Inc. </strong>and <strong>Symon Systems, LLC,</strong> authorized Honeywell security dealers.</p><p><strong>Kramer Electronic</strong><strong>s</strong> has entered into a global distribution agreement with <strong>HighSecLabs</strong>.</p><p><strong>Unified Compliance</strong> and <strong>MetricStream</strong> are collaborating to create a cybersecurity hub.</p><p><strong>The University of Oregon Law Library</strong> has chosen <strong>MN8 Foxfire</strong> for its photoluminescent emergency exit system.</p><p><strong>Nedap</strong> has integrated <strong>Commend</strong> intercoms into its AEOS security management solution.</p><p><strong>Next Biometrics</strong> is collaborating with <strong>Authasas</strong> to integrate its fingerprint scanner into Authasis authentication solutions.</p><p><strong>Baylor University</strong> is using Nice­Vision from <strong>NICE Systems </strong>to manage video in its new football stadium.</p><p><strong>OSS Inc.</strong> is providing security guard services for <strong>The Vindicator,</strong> an Ohio daily newspaper.</p><p><strong>Samsung Techwin America</strong> and <strong>AMID Strategies</strong> are partnering to support the technology needs of architects, engineers, and security consultants.</p><p><strong>STANLEY Security</strong> has enhanced its partnership with<strong> D. Stafford & Associates</strong> and the <strong>National Association of Clery Compliance Officers and Professiona</strong>ls in the development of resources for colleges and universities.</p><p><strong>TagMaster North America, Inc.,</strong> RFID systems for automatic vehicle identification were installed at<strong> Duke University</strong> by T2 Systems.</p><p><strong>TRI-ED</strong> announced that <strong>Axis Communications</strong> and <strong>Fluidmesh Networks</strong> are new vendor partners.</p><h4>GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS</h4><p>Situational awareness products from <strong>Amika Mobile</strong> were selected for a Canada Border Services Agency project on testing critical alerts and responses.</p><p><strong>CGI </strong>was chosen to develop a national security vetting solution for the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence. The solution will perform more than 200,000 vetting requests per year, including financial status, address verification, and criminal record checks.</p><p>A fireproof vault from<strong> Firelock</strong> is protecting critical documents at the new Town Hall in Lyme, Connecticut.</p><p><strong>L-3 Security & Detection Systems</strong> has received an order from the German Ministry of the Interior for more than 100 ProVision Security Scanners.</p><p><strong>National School Control Systems</strong> has provided its BEARACADE Systems to Mentor Public Schools in Ohio.</p><p><strong>Neology</strong>, a subsidiary of SMARTRAC Technology Group, has entered into a patent license agreement for licensed products with the Florida Department of Transportation and Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise.​</p><h4>AWARDS AND CERTIFICATIONS</h4><p><strong>ADI</strong> selected Hikvision as Vendor of the Year for the United States, and Honeywell Cable for Canada.</p><p><strong>Carousel Industries</strong> was named Commercial Partner of the Year, Americas by Juniper Networks.</p><p><strong>HomeWAV</strong> was awarded a patent for its Web-based remote visitation system for correctional facilities.</p><p>The <strong>Medeco M100 Aperio Cylinder with Prox</strong> earned the 2014 GOOD DESIGN Award for Protective Equipment from the Chicago Athenaeum.  Other winners in the category included the HES KS100 Server Cabinet Lock, the Securitron R100 Surface Mounted Wireless Reader, the Hacker AG Access Control System ASD300, and the VieVu2 from VieVu, Inc.</p><p><strong>Milestone Systems</strong> has certified BCDVideo’s Nova Server and Storage Series for use with XProtect.</p><p><strong>Sennheiser </strong>was awarded Preferred Partner Status by NACR.</p><p><strong>U.S. Security Care</strong> has been approved as a provider of school police by the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Office for Safe Schools.</p><p><strong>Wick Hill</strong> has earned Government Cyber Essential certification, part of the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Strategy.​</p><h4>ANNOUNCEMENTS</h4><p><strong>ADI </strong>has opened a new ADI Express branch in Charleston, South Carolina.</p><p><strong>AlliedBarton Security Services</strong> hired more than 5,000 military veterans and reservists in 2014, working toward its goal of 25,000 hires in five years.</p><p><strong>Automatic Systems </strong>has introduced an extended warranty for its pedestrian products; the new warranty period has lengthened from two years to five years.</p><p><strong>CNL Software</strong> has opened its Middle East Centre of Excellence in Masdar City, Abu Dhabi.</p><p>A home security system from <strong>DSC Intrusion Security </strong>was featured on Designing Spaces on the Lifetime television network.</p><p>The<strong> Federation Against Software Theft</strong> has launched a new membership program to help protect software developers in the United Kingdom.</p><p>Risk management firm<strong> iJET International, Inc.,</strong> has opened an office in Singapore to support its global network.</p><p><strong>Kimberlite Corporation</strong> announced that its Fresno, California, central monitoring station assisted law enforcement in 1,081 apprehensions in 2014, for a new record of assists.</p><p><strong>Larson Electronics</strong> has donated re­chargeable LED spotlights to the Lion Guardians conservation in East Africa.</p><p><strong>ONVIF </strong>has published the Release Candidate for Profile Q, which gives end users and systems integrators tools to connect systems and devices.</p><p><strong>Razberi Technologies</strong> has moved to a larger headquarters in Farmers Branch, Texas, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.</p><p><strong>Securitas Security Services USA</strong> added 6,829 veterans to its employee base in 2014 in support of the 100,000 Jobs Mission, a coalition of companies that committed to hire 100,000 veterans. So far, the companies have hired more than 217,000 veterans, with a new goal of 300,000.</p><p><strong>Securus Technologies </strong>has launched a new brand and Web presence in support of its expanding product and service offerings.</p><p><strong>Sonim Technologies</strong> has formed a Public Safety Advisory Board to ensure that first responders have the best communications tools to do their jobs.</p><p><strong>TRI-ED</strong> has opened a new branch location in Columbia, Maryland, to serve the Baltimore area.</p><p><strong>The Trustworthy Accountability Group</strong>, an advertising industry initiative, has launched the Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy to help advertisers avoid damage to their brands.</p><p><strong>Vanderbilt </strong>has established its international headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany.</p> TacticsGP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">Late one evening this past March, a woman drove her vehicle to a security gate outside the White House fence line and left a package she claimed was a bomb. U.S. Secret Service agents at the scene confronted the woman but were unable to apprehend her, and the package sat unattended as traffic drove by. Eleven minutes later, the Secret Service called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) bomb squad, but failed to mention that the woman had identified the package as a bomb—instead calling it a suspicious package.</span></p><p>While law enforcement was responding, two high-ranking Secret Service agents were allegedly drinking and driving following a retirement party. They drove through a temporary barricade within a few feet of the package. Yet, they were not given a sobriety test and were allowed to leave the scene. The woman was later arrested—by a different police agency on unrelated charges—but the agents were not immediately reprimanded. </p><p>Secret Service Director Joseph P. Clancy was not informed of the incident, and only discovered what had happened because a former agent told him that an e-mail about the activities was circulating. The incident was yet another in a long list of embarrassments faced by the agency in the last few years.</p><p>For more than 100 years the Secret Service has had the full-time responsibility of protecting the president of the United States. As a protective detail, it’s had numerous unsung successes, yet lately it seems the only coverage the service is getting is for its failures as an organization. </p><p>In an effort to reform the agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson commissioned two independent reviews of the Secret Service, which recommended a host of changes and resulted in a complete overhaul of the service’s leadership. </p><p>However, instead of doing what many assumed—appointing an outsider to take charge of the notoriously insular organization—President Barack Obama and Johnson appointed Acting Director Clancy as the 24th director. Clancy began working for the service in May 1984 in its Philadelphia Field Office before being transferred to the Presidential Protective Division.</p><p>“The president and I considered several strong candidates for the position, including those who had never been with the Secret Service,” Johnson said in a statement. “Ultimately, Joe Clancy struck the right balance of familiarity with the Secret Service and its missions, respect from within the workforce, and a demonstrated determination to make hard choices and foster needed change. I am confident Joe will continue this management approach.”</p><p>Clancy became the director a few weeks before the March incident, and as a change agent he’s come under fire from Congress for the Secret Service’s actions.</p><p>“It’s going to take time to change some of this culture,” Clancy said in a statement to the House Oversight Committee. “There’s no excuse for this information not to come up the chain. That’s going to take time because I’m going to have to build trust with our workforce.”</p><p>His remarks drew strong opinions from members of the committee, such as Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), who suggested that those not interested in changing the culture of the service “go get another job,” to Rep. Chris Stewart’s (R-UT), “Dude, you don’t have to earn their trust. You’re their boss. They’re supposed to earn your trust.”</p><p>Clancy says he is committed to improving the agency, but can he be an effective change agent? Or is an outsider needed to hold people accountable and overhaul the Secret Service?</p><p>Julie Battilana, an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, has been studying change agents for more than a decade. What she’s found is that it’s not enough for change agents to develop a vision, align people in their organization with the vision, and evaluate the process of that change implementation. </p><p>“It was clear to me that you could still engage in every single step, and fail miserably when it comes to implementing change,” she says. “So I wanted to go one step beyond and try to understand other factors of success. And that led me to study leadership skills.”</p><p>She published her findings in Harvard Business Review’s “The Network Secrets of Great Change Agents” with Tiziana Casciaro. The research revealed that individuals who are central to their organization—employees that other people go to for advice—“are significantly more effective change agents,” Battilana explains. Regardless of their position in the formal hierarchy, these individuals have influence that gives them a clear advantage over others seeking to be change agents.</p><p>Battilana also found that the type of network an organization has can also influence how successful a dramatic—or divergent—change can be. For instance, if an organization has a cohesive network where all employees are connected to one another, implementing a divergent change can result in strong pushback, Battilana says. “Because all these people are connected to each other, it only takes one of them to think it’s a bad idea and try to convince others, and they can kill the idea.”</p><p>However, if you have a rigid network—like a bridging network where only the change agent is connected to employees who are not connected to each other—it allows change agents to tailor their discourse with different audiences to try to convince them to get on board. </p><p>“Also, if these different audiences are not connected to each other…it will take longer for them to create a coalition against you,” she adds. “This is critical because it’s divergent change, and divergent changes generate more resistance.”</p><p>Battilana also examined how personal relationships between change agents, endorsers, fence-sitters, and resisters affect organizational change. Interestingly, personal relationships with endorsers were not as crucial as those with fence-sitters, because the latter are likely to support the change on its merits—not based solely on whether they like the change agent. </p><p>“Having a stronger connection with the fence-sitters is always helpful because those people are ambivalent about the change,” she explains. “They can see the pros and cons, and sometimes they’re just indifferent.” Change agents can use these connections to try to get them to become endorsers, and can also use other members of their coalition that have a connection to get them on board as well.</p><p>When it comes to resisters, having a personal relationship with the change agent can be a double-edged sword. If the change isn’t radical, change agents can leverage their personal relationships, and resisters may back them. But if the change brings “huge implications for me and for other people, it’s unlikely that for the sake of our relationship I’m going to accept this really unwanted outcome,” Battilana says. </p><p>“And what I’ve seen over and over in different settings is that, in fact, when people have a connection to resisters of a divergent change, they very often waste a lot of time thinking if there’s one person I can convince, it’s this resister because I know him or her,” she explains. “But what they don’t realize is it’s a two-way street, so what’s happening then is those resisters end up influencing the change agent. And the change agents often give up on the change and do not continue.” </p>,-A-Guide-for-International-Travelers.aspxBook Review: Personal Security: A Guide for International TravelersGP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​Covering the wide range of security concerns for a diverse group of travelers is no easy task. In this book, Tanya Spencer relates anecdotal stories and advice from 62 contributors to inform the international traveler. She offers strategies for protection throughout the book—some of these are excellent; but others are inconsistent with best practices. The author´s passion and well-meaning intentions are obvious, but she missed the chance to write a definitive work for travelers headed to risky destinations. </p><p>Personal Security is full of great examples and sound advice from numerous experts; however, the text is also mired by confusing advice that could prove problematic for the untrained reader. For example, two contributors suggest “carrying your passport at all times” and justify their advice based on their specific situations. Carrying a copy of it will suffice in most cases and avoid the situation more travelers face—losing it or having it stolen. </p><p>The section on “Extreme Risks” is troubling in a couple of different areas. In discussing a bomb scenario, it advises, “turn away from it and lie down,” rather than simply get away—which is stated later. Even more dangerous, it says, “you could kick the device away but you don´t know how long you have before it explodes.” This statement could be misconstrued by some and cost them their lives. The text also fails to adequately address shooting incidents.</p><p>Extensive cross-referencing makes the text cumbersome to read, although some may find it helpful if seeking a specific topic. Also, the reader would benefit from checklists that could be easily implemented, rather than countless references to websites and other resources. The references would have been better served by quality over quantity—most references are credible, but they are diluted by countless references from unreliable, peer-based Web resources. </p><p>Future editions of the book would be well-served by separating the traveling precautions from those addressing destination issues, including a post-travel process to elicit lessons learned, and clearly distinguishing actionable steps specific to business travelers as opposed to tourists.</p><p>The key to good advice is practicality and brevity. Most casual or professional travelers will not take the time to read an entire text before embarking on a trip. This book is best reserved as a resource guide for experienced security managers charged with administering travel programs. Given the high stakes involved with international travel, it is best to look beyond this for additional resources and expert advice.</p><p><em><strong>Reviewer: Jay Martin, CPP, CFI (Certified Forensic Interviewer), CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner)</strong>, is the regional security manager for Goldcorp, Central & South America, based in Santiago, Chile. He served with the U.S. Marines, including embassy duty in Mexico and Egypt, and he has developed and managed travel security programs for high-risk environments. Martin serves as the chair of the ASIS Petrochemical, Chemical, and Extractive Industries Security Council.</em></p> Review: Investigating Internet CrimesGP0|#91bd5d60-260d-42ec-a815-5fd358f1796d;L0|#091bd5d60-260d-42ec-a815-5fd358f1796d|Cybersecurity;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465<p>​Any organization that has a sizeable web presence, especially if it involves e-commerce, will inevitably become a victim of some sort of Internet malfeasance. Contrary to popular management belief, knowing how to effectively deal with, respond to, and recover from such incidents is not a trivial endeavor. Nothing proved that more than the Sony breach of 2014.</p><p>In Investigating Internet Crimes: An Introduction to Solving Crimes in Cyberspace, authors Todd Shipley and Art Bowker provide the reader with an effective framework and methodology on how to deal with online incidents and crimes. The book is a thorough primer to the fundamentals of the topic. It is light on theory, but heavy on real-world practicality.  </p><p>The book focuses on using software tools to investigate Internet-based crimes and explains how these tools can be used during an investigation. The authors astutely note that the reader should not get caught up in the investigative tools themselves, and that having a proper focus on how to approach an incident is more important than the tools. Good tools in the hands of a clueless corporate investigator are, for the most part, useless, and that is what the book exhorts the reader to avoid.</p><p>The authors also offer advice on how to ensure any evidence gathered is admissible in court. Investigators need to know that being careless with evidence can stop a prosecution in its tracks.</p><p>Both authors and technical editor Nick Selby have decades of law enforcement and real-world experience, so the book is authoritative and practical. For those needing a guide to get them up to speed on the topic, Investigating Internet Crimes is a great place to start.</p><p><em><strong>Reviewer: Ben Rothke</strong>, CISSP (Certified Information Systems Security Professional), is a senior information security consultant with The Nettitude Group.</em></p>


06/08/2015 - 06/10/2015

06/08/2015 - 06/10/2015

Facility Security Design (Education)

06/08/2015 - 06/11-2015 
Effective Management for Security Professionals, Madrid, Spain (Education)​

​06/10/2015 - 06/11/2015
Security Force Management (Education)

06/15/2015 - 06/18/2015
Functional Management (APCIII)​​​ (Education)

Contract is the Key: Protecting the Professional Security Provider (We​binar)

Casino Robberies: Protecting the Casino and Guests (​Webinar)

​07/07/2015 - 07/08/2015
5th Annual CSO Roundtable Congress, Mexico​​​ (Conference)

​09/27/2015 - 10/01/2015

ASIS International 61st Annual Seminar and Exhibits​ (Conference)