Surveillance

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Virtual-Lineup.aspxThe Virtual LineupGP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652017-02-01T05:00:00Zhttps://adminsm.asisonline.org/pages/lilly-chapa.aspx, Lilly Chapa<p>​U.S. State and federal agencies are amassing databases of American citizens’ fingerprints and images. The programs were largely under the public radar until a governmental watchdog organization conducted an audit on them. The so-called “virtual lineups” include two FBI programs that use facial recognition technology to search a database containing 64 million images and fingerprints.</p><p>In May 2016, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Face Recognition Technology: FBI Should Better Ensure Privacy and Accuracy, a report on the FBI programs. Since 1999, the FBI has been using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which digitized the fingerprints of arrestees. In 2010, a $1.2 billion project began that would replace IAFIS with Next Generation Identification (NGI), a program that would include both fingerprint data and facial recognition technology using the Interstate Photo System (IPS). The FBI began a pilot version of the NGI-IPS program in 2011, and it became fully operational in April 2015. </p><p>The NGI-IPS draws most of its photos from some 18,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement entities, and consists of two categories: criminal and civil identities. More than 80 percent of the photos are criminal—obtained during an arrest—while the rest are civil and include photos from driver’s licenses, security clearances, and other photo-based civil applications. The FBI, which is the only agency able to directly access the NGI-IPS, can use facial recognition technology to support active criminal investigations by searching the database and finding potential matches to the image of a suspected criminal. </p><p>Diana Maurer, the director of justice and law enforcement issues on the homeland security and justice team at GAO, explains to Security Management that the FBI can conduct a search for an active investigation based on images from a variety of sources—camera footage of a bank robber, for example. Officials input the image to the NGI-IPS, and the facial recognition software will return as many as 50 possible matches. The results are investigative leads, the report notes, and cannot be used to charge an individual with a crime. A year ago, the FBI began to allow seven states—Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, and Texas—to submit photos to be run through the NGI-IPS. The FBI is working with eight additional states to grant them access, and another 24 states have expressed interest in using the database.</p><p>“The fingerprints and images are all one package of information,” Maurer says. “If you’ve been arrested, you can assume that you’re in, at a minimum, the fingerprint database. You may or may not be in the facial recognition database, because different states have different levels of cooperation with the FBI on the facial images.”</p><p>The FBI has a second, internal investigative tool called Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services. The more extensive program runs similar automated searches using NGI-IPS as well as external partners’ face recognition systems that contain primarily civil photos from state and federal government databases, such as driver’s license photos and visa applicant photos. </p><p>“The total number of face photos available in all searchable repositories is over 411 million, and the FBI is interested in adding additional federal and state face recognition systems to their search capabilities,” the GAO report notes.</p><p>Maurer, who authored the GAO report, says researchers found a number of privacy, transparency, and accuracy concerns over the two programs. Under federal privacy laws, agencies must publish a Systems of Records Notice (SORN) or Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) in the Federal Register identifying the categories of individuals whose information is being collected. Maurer notes that the information on such regulations is “typically very wonky and very detailed” and is “not something the general public is likely aware of, but it’s certainly something that people who are active in the privacy and transparency worlds are aware of.” </p><p>GAO found that the FBI did not issue timely or accurate SORNs or PIAs for its two facial recognition programs. In 2008, the FBI published a PIA of its plans for NGI-IPS but didn’t update the assessment after the program underwent significant changes during the pilot phase—including the significant addition of facial recognition services. Additionally, the FBI did not release a PIA for FACE Services until May 2015—three years after the program began. </p><p>“We were very concerned that the Department of Justice didn’t issue the required SORN or PIA until after FBI started using the facial recognition technology for real world work,” Maurer notes. </p><p>Maurer says the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—which oversees the FBI—disagreed with the GAO’s concerns over the notifications. Officials say the programs didn’t need PIAs until they became fully operational, but the GAO report noted that the FBI conducted more than 20,000 investigative searches during the three-year pilot phase of the NGI-IPS program. </p><p>“The DOJ felt the earlier version of the PIA was sufficient, but we said it didn’t mention facial recognition technology at all,” Maurer notes. </p><p>Similarly, the DOJ did not publish a SORN that addressed the collection of citizens’ photos for facial recognition capabilities until GAO completed its review. Even though the facial recognition component of NGI-IPS has been in use since 2011, the DOJ said the existing version of the SORN—the 1999 version that addressed only legacy fingerprint collection activities—was sufficient. </p><p>“Throughout this period, the agency collected and maintained personal information for these capabilities without the required explanation of what information it is collecting or how it is used,” the GAO report states.</p><p>It wasn’t until May 2016—after the DOJ received the GAO draft report—that an updated SORN was published, Maurer notes. “So they did it very late in the game, and the bottom line for both programs is the same: they did not issue the SORNs until after both of those systems were being used for real world investigations,” Maurer explains. </p><p>In the United States, there are no federally mandated repercussions for skirting privacy laws, Maurer says. “The penalty that they will continue to pay is public transparency and scrutiny. The public has very legitimate questions about DOJ and FBI’s commitment to protecting the privacy of people in their use of facial recognition technology.”</p><p>Another concern the GAO identified is the lack of oversight or audits for using facial recognition services in active investigations. The FBI has not completed an audit on the effectiveness of the NGI-IPS because it says the program has not been fully operational long enough. As with the PIA and SORN disagreements, the FBI says the NGI-IPS has only been fully operational since it completed pilot testing in April 2015, while the GAO notes that parts of the system have been used in investigations since the pilot program began in 2011. </p><p>The FBI faces a different problem when it comes to auditing its FACE Services databases. Since FACE Services uses up to 18 different databases, the FBI does not have the primary authority or obligation to audit the external databases—the responsibility lies with the owners of the databases, DOJ officials stated. “We understand the FBI may not have authority to audit the maintenance or operation of databases owned and managed by other agencies,” the report notes. “However, the FBI does have a responsibility to oversee the use of the information by its employees.” </p><p>Audits and operational testing on the face recognition technology are all the more important because the FBI has conducted limited assessments on the accuracy of the searches, Maurer notes. FBI requires the NGI-IPS to return a correct match of an existing person at least 85 percent of the time, which was met during initial testing. However, Maurer points out that this detection rate was based on a list of 50 photos returned by the system, when sometimes investigators may request fewer results. Additionally, the FBI’s testing database contained 926,000 photos, while NGI-IPS contains about 30 million photos.</p><p>“Although the FBI has tested the detection rate for a candidate list of 50 photos, NGI-IPS users are able to request smaller candidate lists—specifically between two and 50 photos,” the report states. “FBI officials stated that they do not know, and have not tested, the detection rate for other candidate list sizes.” </p><p>Maurer notes that the GAO recommendation to conduct more extensive operational tests for accuracy in real-world situations was the only recommendation the FBI agreed with fully. “It’s a start,” she says. </p><p>The FBI also has not tested the false positive rate—how often NGI-IPS searches erroneously match a person to the database. Because the results are not intended to serve as positive identifications, just investigative leads, the false positive rates are not relevant, FBI officials stated.</p><p>“There was one thing they seemed to miss,” Maurer says. “The FBI kept saying, ‘if it’s a false positive, what’s the harm? We’re just investigating someone, they’re cleared right away.’ From our perspective, the FBI shows up at your home or place of business, thinks you’re a terrorist or a bank robber, that could have a really significant impact on people’s lives, and that’s why it’s important to make sure this is accurate.”</p><p>The GAO report notes that the collection of Americans’ biometric information combined with facial recognition technology will continue to grow both at the federal investigative level as well as in state and local police departments.</p><p>“Even though we definitely had some concerns about the accuracy of these systems and the protections they have in place to ensure the privacy of the individuals who are included in these searches, we do recognize that this is an important tool for law enforcement in helping solve cases,” Maurer says. “We just want to make sure it’s done in a way that protects people’s privacy, and that these searches are done accurately.”</p><p>This type of technology isn’t just limited to law enforcement, according to Bloomberg’s Hello World video series. A new Russian app, FindFace, by NTechLab allows its users to photograph anyone they come across and learn their identity. Like the FBI databases, the app uses facial recognition technology to search a popular Russian social network and other public sources with a 70 percent accuracy rate—the creators of the app boast a database with 1 billion photographs. Moscow officials are currently working with FindFace to integrate the city’s 150,000 surveillance cameras into the existing database to help solve criminal investigations. But privacy advocates are raising concerns about other ways the technology could be used. For example, a user could learn the identity of a stranger on the street and later contact that person. And retailers and advertisers have already expressed interest in using FindFace to target shoppers with ads or sales based on their interests. </p><p>  Whether it’s a complete shutdown to Internet access or careful monitoring of potentially dangerous content, countries and companies around the world are taking advantage of the possibilities—and power—inherent in controlling what citizens see online. As criminals and extremists move their activities from land and sea to technology, governments must figure out how to counter digital warfare while simultaneously respecting and protecting citizens’ basic human right to Internet access.​ ​</p>

Surveillance

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Virtual-Lineup.aspx2017-02-01T05:00:00ZThe Virtual Lineup
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-is-Instrumental.aspx2017-02-01T05:00:00ZSurveillance is Instrumental
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Wildlife-Trafficking.aspx2017-01-01T05:00:00ZWildlife Trafficking
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Speedy-Surveillance.aspx2016-11-01T04:00:00ZSpeedy Surveillance
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Reducción-de-la-Violencia-en-América-Latina.aspx2016-10-11T04:00:00ZReducción de la Violencia en América Latina
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Guarding-A-Floating-Treasure.aspx2016-09-01T04:00:00ZGuarding A Floating Treasure
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Scholastic-Surveillance.aspx2016-08-01T04:00:00ZScholastic Surveillance
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Casino-Makes-a-Sure-Bet.aspx2016-06-01T04:00:00ZA Casino Makes a Sure Bet
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/In-the-Public-Interest.aspx2016-05-01T04:00:00ZIn the Public Interest
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Staying-On-Message.aspx2016-02-25T05:00:00ZStaying On Message
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Q-and-A---Ashly-Helser.aspx2016-01-01T05:00:00ZMall Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Sweet-Solution.aspx2015-12-21T05:00:00ZA Sweet Solution
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Threat-in-the-Crowd.aspx2015-12-07T05:00:00ZFour Indicators Security Professionals Should Look for when Identifying Suicide Bombers
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Remote-Detection.aspx2015-10-05T04:00:00ZRemote Detection
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Book-Review---Digital-Video-Surveillance-and-Security.aspx2015-09-01T04:00:00ZBook Review: Digital Video Surveillance and Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Body-Cameras-in-Schools.aspx2015-07-28T04:00:00ZSchools Consider Adopting Body Cameras for Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/High-Alert.aspx2015-07-14T04:00:00ZHigh Alert
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-for-Security-and-Beyond.aspx2015-06-15T04:00:00ZSurveillance for Security and Beyond
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Savvy-Storage-Solution.aspx2015-06-01T04:00:00ZA Savvy Storage Solution
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Night-Watch.aspx2015-05-01T04:00:00ZNight Watch

 You May Also Like...

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-for-Security-and-Beyond.aspxSurveillance for Security and Beyond<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">In 2015, there are more than 2 billion surveillance cameras worldwide, according to estimates from Seagate Technology. These cameras are watching over people and property in previously unimagined settings. The United Kingdom, an early adopter of public area surveillance, had nearly 6 million cameras in 2013, according to estimates by the British Security Industry Authority–one camera for every 11 citizens. Institutions like schools and hospitals have long relied on surveillance to protect those coming through their doors, and retailers and manufacturers are using traditional surveillance to not only improve security, but to enhance quality control and boost flaging marketing strategies. </span></p><p>Experts testify to the increasing affordability of cameras as a factor in the industry’s growth. They also point to the operational value surveillance systems provide, in addition to the traditional security applications. As an illustration of how surveillance is being used in unique ways, this article looks at how a major transportation authority is using cameras to provide operational benefits. Next is a look at how trends in surveillance in law enforcement, municipal, and education spaces are making surveillance technology indispensable.​</p><h4>Mass Transit</h4><p>The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is the fifth largest transit system in the United States, with an average daily ridership of nearly 1.4 million people. The agency’s transportation modes include bus, light rail, subway, ferry, and paratransit for riders with physical disabilities. </p><p>“The transit environment is one of the most complicated security environments you could have because of the unbelievably high volume of customers, the complexity of trains and track, and…hundreds of staircases and escalators and elevators,” says Randy Clarke, director of security and emergency management at MBTA. “All of these things could be places where a security issue could come up or an emergency response or fire emergency. Slip, trip, and fall–these things happen all day, every day.” </p><p>Clarke tells Security Management that the security arm of the MBTA takes an approach to the divisions it services much like a corporate security program would: “Our job is to support our internal clients, such as the operations control group, transit police, legal department, things of that nature.” Security staff also support the Registry of Motor Vehicles, as well as the state police and highway operations center. </p><p>In 2009 the agency began a capital security project to secure all of its facilities with a video surveillance system. The number of cameras MBTA has is in “the thousands,” says Clarke, and they are all embedded within the agency’s access control system that services its more than 10,000 employees. </p><p>To expand its video surveillance program, early last year MBTA began rolling out a project to equip its buses with an integrated video system that would provide real-time surveillance aboard 225 of its more than 1,100 buses. “If you walk into a store, you see a monitor and know you’re on TV; therefore, you know there’s security in this building,” Clarke says. “We wanted that approach for bus security.” </p><p>The previous solution was burdensome and took time out of daily transit operations because video could not be transferred over a network, notes Clarke. “You’d have to go get the bus, take the bus out of service, pull the hard drive, hope the hard drive actually works, put it in a hard-drive reader, replace it with another one, and there will be impacts to the bus operations because you either have to hold the bus and do this operation out in the street impacting customers, or take the bus out of service.”</p><p>MBTA turned to Canadian firm Genetec for its Omnicast video surveillance solution, which provides a number of features that enhance law enforcement and public safety while increasing operational benefits for the agency. </p><p>Each bus is equipped with two 360-<span style="line-height:1.5em;">degree cameras and four high-definition cameras, all manufactured by Panasonic. Additional equipment, such as an anti­vibration feature, is provided to meet the needs of a rugged transportation mode like a bus, which encounters obstacles such as potholes. A screen installed inside the bus shows all the camera views so passengers can see themselves and others on video, much like in a retail store environment. The video is recorded and stored locally on a network video recorder (NVR) inside each bus. </span></p><p>Whenever a bus pulls back into the depot, the video begins downloading automatically to the central server over Wi-Fi, and the footage is stored for about a month. However, if there is an incident that occurs while the bus is still moving, Clarke says they can immediately download the video over the Verizon LTE network to the central monitoring station. “We’re not going to do that for a 30-minute file or six different camera views, but we can do it for an immediate incident,” he explains.  </p><p>The MBTA has a sworn police force of transit officers who specifically deal with incidents relating to the transportation system. Each squad car has a mobile data terminal that integrates with the bus video surveillance platform, allowing an officer to see in real time what’s occurring on a vehicle via a Wi-Fi connection. In addition to the transit police dispatch center, the MBTA has a separate dispatch for transit operators, and at least one police officer is on duty there at all times. </p><p>City and state law enforcement agencies also benefit from the video surveillance when it comes to tracking down criminal suspects. Clarke notes that immediately after committing a crime, thieves will often use public transportation to flee the scene. Recently, a bank robber jumped on a subway train to evade police. Operators at the central monitoring station were able to match the video surveillance to the suspect’s description, and they instructed the train operator to wait at the next station until law enforcement could arrive and make an arrest. </p><p>Operator assault is another major problem the video surveillance solution is helping to solve. In one case, a patron punched a driver in the face; the driver immediately radioed into transit dispatch. Within a minute the central monitoring station had pulled up video from the bus, Clarke says, and zoomed in on the offender’s face. When officers arrived at the scene, the suspect was walking down the street attempting to escape. He was immediately arrested.</p><p>MBTA has a high level of engagement with the public, Clarke notes, and it uses tools such as social media to communicate with riders. With video surveillance, any tweets sent to MBTA over Twitter are easily corroborated, allowing situations to be resolved more quickly. For example, a patron may send a message that she suspects the bus driver is intoxicated. “We’ll look at the video, see if that video validates what the person is saying; if so, they can send a road supervisor, intercept that bus, and do a fitness for duty check on that employee to make sure that they’re not intoxicated,” he explains. </p><p>He adds that the MBTA has an exhaustive list of policies and procedures when it comes to filming and retaining the video. “We have a really detailed chain of custody for why we do video, how it’s archived, how it’s maintained, how it’s digitally stamped, how it would go to court, how it wouldn’t go to court—all those kinds of things.”</p><p>The agency has added 60 more buses to the Genetec platform since the initial deployment in 2014, and it plans to mi­­grate more of its fleet in the future. Clarke says any company looking to implement a similar video application should be prepared for customer feedback. “You just have to know with eyes wide open going into what you’re doing. When you’re go­ing to open up video on anything like a bus, you need to know that people are going to see it—the expectation level is high.” ​</p><h4>Law Enforcement</h4><p>“Especially in the municipalities, preventing crime is still the primary use for the video surveillance solution,” says Dave Sweeney, COO of Advantech, a company that provides system integration. His organization has completed a number of video surveillance projects for law enforcement, allowing them to take advantage of low-cost cameras to replace the need for human force. “We have a local police leader who says ‘I can’t afford to put an officer on every corner, but I can afford to put a camera on every corner,’” Sweeney notes. </p><p>Other municipalities have established partnerships with local businesses and law enforcement, providing a central monitoring station for camera feeds. While they may not have a dedicated </p><p>officer watching the monitors 24/7, if anything should occur throughout the city, “they have learned to use the tool to help them solve the crime, to dispatch their resources, and to try to find witnesses who may have left the scene to figure out what occurred,” he notes. For example, one such municipality teams up with government agencies. While the city owns about 75 percent of the cameras feeding into its central monitoring station, the other 25 percent come from the local housing authority’s cameras.</p><p>Sweeney says public perception can be a major challenge faced by municipalities when deploying video surveillance. “You always have the skeptical crowd who is leery of ‘Big Brother’ watching them,” he notes. “But if you put the solution in and publicize the benefits of it, ultimately the community will gain trust in it.” </p><p>Scalability is also crucial for muni­ci­­palities and law enforcement, but bu­dget constraints may only allow them to expand their video surveillance infrastructure a handful of cameras at a time. Often, Sweeney notes, money can get pulled away from video surveillance within a municipality’s budget if there’s an emergency such as a snowstorm that takes precedence. </p><p>He says whatever size deployment a city or law enforcement agency begins with, keeping its ultimate goal in mind is key to successful expansion. “The challenge for all parties involved in the beginning phase is making sure they understand the ultimate goal of the system in the future so that they can sign accordingly, and so that everything they put in will allow that growth.” ​</p><h4>Education</h4><p>Experts say schools are increasingly turning to video and audio surveillance to deter threats and also increase the amount of time being spent on education. One use of video surveillance technology in the education environment, for example, is corroborating incidents such as a child being bullied. Louroe Electronics provides an audio component to video cameras that adds an extra layer of monitoring.</p><p>“If a teacher tells the child’s parents, ‘your kid is acting up in class,’ the first thing they’re going to say is ‘not my little angel, she would never do that,’” says Cameron Javdani, director of sales and marketing at the audio company. “But if you can send it home with an audio clip of her picking on another student or some kind of incident that happened, it’s a lot more powerful and you can address the specifics of the situation, rather than this nebulous term of ‘bullying.’”</p><p>A combination of audio and video surveillance within schools can also allow students who are sick and have to miss class the opportunity to catch up on the day’s lessons. “There’s a huge secondary benefit to security equipment being used but serving a use that’s not security,” notes Javdani.  </p><p>Education administrators see video as a way to not only enhance security, but also improve the educational experience, which Sweeney says should be their primary focus. For example, a school being evacuated due to a bomb threat may lose eight hours of classroom time because authorities can’t clear the area where the device is supposedly located. But if video surveillance can help give an all-clear sooner, schools may get hours back in the teaching day.</p><p>The placement of surveillance cameras can also vary depending on the education environment, adds Sweeney, who says that a primary school may want more cameras pointed at doors and playgrounds, while high schools tend to want more cameras overall. “Once you migrate into the middle school and secondary education, that’s where you see the cam­eras really grow full scale into the facility,” he says. “Hallways, stairwells, cafeterias–all the areas where the students are for the most part, [whenever] there’s a very high student-to-adult ratio.”  </p><p>Another notable trend in the education space for video surveillance is shared infrastructure, says Sweeney, who explains he’s seen several schools using the same IT backbone for their video networks. “We’ve seen customers who are okay with sharing infrastructure that have a very well-thought-out, very clear IT policy….to allow the systems to use the same network hardware, but still remain completely isolated from traffic and all the other networking standpoints,” he says. ​</p><h4>Retail</h4><p>Surveillance remains a critical aspect of retail security for deterring and solving thefts, but experts say that stores are turning to surveillance to enhance marketing techniques, such as product placement, says Andrew Elvish, vice president of marketing at Genetec. Elvish notes that a company can use video and heat mapping to show which display cases in a store get the most traffic and visibility. That way, they can justify charging vendors more for shelving their products in those locations. </p><p>Retailers are also monitoring product sales with video management systems (VMS) that are connected to point-of-sale (POS) terminals. If they’re trying to find the video of a certain item being sold, they can click on the line item within their sales report and the VMS will jump to the video at the time and date it was vended. “You can click and go directly to the view of that product being scanned through the POS system,” he notes. “It’s not a super fancy Star Trek analytic, it’s just finding two pieces of data that are very meaningful and more powerful when you put them together.”​</p><h4>Trends</h4><p>The surveillance industry is on track to grow to nearly $49 billion by 2020, according to a January 2015 report from Grand View Research. Research by ASIS International indicates that 62 percent of organizations are increasing their video surveillance budgets in 2015 and 2016, while only 3 percent are decreasing budgets. “It’s getting ubiquitous, almost like a utility, and I think the cost is no longer going to be prohibitive,” says Robert Fuchs, marketing manager of surveillance technology at Plustek USA. In fact, many experts say that so many new manufacturers have entered the market, especially from Asia, and have reduced costs so much, that cameras have been “commoditized.” </p><p>Sweeney notes that the K-12 space will continue to expand on its use of surveillance. “I think the growth of video as a tool in that space is going to be something to keep an eye on,” he says. “You’re going to see a big push for visitor management, some form of a real-time check of visitors, not only of identification but also a formal log electronically of who came in.” </p><p>In the municipal market, Sweeney says having surveillance feeds at all times in law enforcement vehicles is a real possibility. Portability for police is something Plustek USA sees as a growth area. For example, during special events or in high-risk areas, law enforcement can mount a temporary camera. “They can just put a small camera on a pole and have it pointed in a direction. It doesn’t pull very much energy and they can have a couple of pairs of eyes looking at the events, not drawing attention, and take it back down,” Fuchs notes. </p><p>Surveillance technology vendors and integrators point to a number of existing or emerging trends in the industry that are shaping the way solutions are designed and installed. One such trend is unification of systems. “People don’t really want to focus on managing a whole bunch of different software applications when something bad is happening or they’re in a sense of panic,” says Elvish. “We see that in large-scale corporations; we see it in city, municipal, and state; we see it across the board in our end users–the idea of bringing together the core systems is really going to define where we’re going in this industry.” </p><p>VMS devices traditionally link with an organization’s cameras and can provide analytics so end users can easily search for needed footage. But Elvish says that uniting even more systems into the VMS platform is a growing trend. The system may also be tied to things like access control, license plate recognition, and intercoms, as well as sensors such as smoke alarms throughout an organization. With these unified systems, whenever an incident occurs, information is quickly available, and cameras can be pointed at the area of interest so operators can respond appropriately.  </p><p>Elvish recalls an incident that occurred at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Eur­ope’s fifth-busiest airport in terms of passengers. Schiphol deals with a range of security issues every day. After a customer had a heart attack in a terminal, security was able to bring together a number of different tools to improve its response. A unified system “brings together the camera, it brings together the notification over the communication system–even two-way radio for mobile security officers and pushing SMS text messages to those mobile officers–and then to start that process of, okay, did you notify the local police force? Did you notify the ambulance? Did you get this form signed by the ambulance when they left? It seems like such a natural thing but it’s extraordinarily complex,” Elvish explains. </p><p>One popular new technology is the 4K camera, which provides ultra-high definition for video recording, about 4 times more than normal HD. “The trend toward these high megapixel cameras, like 4K cameras, that’s going to put a massive amount of stress on customers’ IP networks, in a good way,” adds Elvish, who says the quality of the cameras will be a major benefit for companies. He notes that marketplace solutions that accelerate GPU (graphic processing unit) transmission will help end users meet the challenge of higher load on their existing storage capacity. For example, with a GPU, an organization can increase the number of streams it can show on a single monitor with the same graphics capabilities it had before. </p><p>In the municipal space, Sweeney says there will be a push for more mobile video surveillance access for police. “In the municipal piece you’re going to see the growth of video surveillance continue, probably with the objective of trying to get that video out to the edge…</p><p>I think you’re going to see some push and some ability to get video out to those responders in their vehicles,” he says. </p><p>Elvish adds that in terms of storage, companies will be turning more to the cloud than to local devices. “We’re going to see the movement from edge to cloud architecture, and if we thought encryption and security were important from edge to core within your own security network, once you start moving edge to cloud then you really need to lock down that data,” he notes. </p><p>Javdani of Louroe adds that surveillance should be viewed as a preventive tool, not merely a retroactive one. “A lot of people in the industry, and I don’t know why, have this mentality of ‘we want to catch someone in the act,’” he notes. “You don’t want to catch them, you want to deter or prevent the criminal because it’s operationally better, and it saves a lot of headaches.” </p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Book-Review---Due-Diligence.aspxBook Review: Due Diligence<p>​BRB Publications; available from ASIS;  #2247; 336 pages; $22 (ASIS members), $25 (no​nmembers).</p><p>Most investigators perform online investigations routinely; they tend to use the same tools, go to the same sites, and search the same way. <em>The Guide to Online Due Diligence Investigations: The Professional Approach on How to Use Traditional and Social Media Resources </em>offers a wealth of tools and practices that will help investigators find new ways to search. </p><p>Whether doing a background check on a new hire or on a potential partner company, this book lays out search tools and methods, and explains how information (or lack thereof) can lead investigators to use other less-known resources. The guide also includes a sample final report, sample contracts, and a comprehensive list of social media sites. While reading, I found myself marking pages for later reference and putting the book down to try out a new tool or technique. </p><p>The chapter on assets and lien searches is especially well written and useful. The author outlines the “Five W’s” for searching for hidden assets—With Whom, Where, When Paid Ahead, What Cash, and Why Not For a Rainy Day. </p><p>Included in the book is a handy list of free online resources for state government agencies that I have started using regularly. Throughout the book, the author provides tips that leverage personal experiences and knowledge to assist investigators. </p><p>This guidebook should be on every investigator’s desk. If you get stuck on an investigation, this book can help get your project back on track. The Guide to Online Due Diligence is a good resource for investigators in both the private and government sectors.</p><p>--<br></p><p><em><strong>Reviewer: Sandy Gosselin, CPP</strong>, is a senior security advisor for Capital Power in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and a member of the ASIS Petrochemical, Chemical, and Extractive Industries Security Council. ​</em></p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/School-of-Threats.aspxSchool of Threats<p>​In the fall of 2015, a university sophomore we will call Sophia spoke with her college’s Title IX coordinator, called Mr. Jones for the purposes of this article. Sophia told Jones that her former boyfriend—a sophomore at the same college—sexually assaulted her in 2014.</p><p>The two broke up over the summer, but Sophia thought her ex-boyfriend was stalking her now that they were both back on campus for the fall semester.</p><p>Jones told Sophia about her various options, including reporting the stalking to campus police or to local law enforcement, or filing a complaint with the college’s Student Conduct Office, which would then investigate and take action against her ex-boyfriend if necessary. </p><p>Jones also gave Sophia a list of support resources that she could access, including the college’s counseling center, women’s centers, and community-based resources for victims of domestic violence.</p><p>Sophia said she did not want to file a report with campus police or local law enforcement, but she did want to file a report with the Student Conduct Office.</p><p>Two days after filing her report, Sophia alerted Jones that she thought her ex-boyfriend was escalating his efforts to stalk her. She was afraid of what he might do to retaliate against her, and feared for her physical safety.</p><p>When Sophia mentioned that she feared for her own safety, Jones offered another option: he could alert the college’s threat assessment team to address the situation from a safety perspective. </p><p>The team could evaluate whether there was any threat posed to Sophia by her ex-boyfriend and could intervene—as necessary—to reduce the risk to Sophia while her report was investigated by the Student Conduct Office.  </p><p>As higher education and security professionals are well aware, the last few years have seen many changes in the law and guidance addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking issues on college and university campuses. </p><p>Colleges and universities in the United States are now obligated to undertake certain actions when they become aware of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking at their institutions under new requirements from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) through Title IX guidance and enforcement and amendments to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) made by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA).</p><p>Those requirements include taking swift action to investigate allegations of such incidents; notifying victims about the availability of protective and support resources; and notifying victims of their options to report the incident to law enforcement or to the institution’s conduct office or to opt not to report.</p><p>With the recent focus on the need for colleges and universities to aggressively pursue reports of sexual assault, interpersonal violence, and stalking, there has been little public discussion about the need to assess and maintain victim safety and campus safety while these investigations, called Title IX or Clery investigations, are undertaken. However, that is beginning to change.</p><p>Several prominent organizations and task forces have released reports on campus safety and violence prevention since the campus shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and at Northern Illinois University in 2008. All of these reports recommended that colleges and universities create threat assessment teams as a key measure to prevent violence before it occurs. </p><p>The threat assessment model is now advocated for use in higher education settings by entities at the federal and state levels, as well as various international and national associations. These include the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services; the National Association of Attorneys General; the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; and several state task forces.</p><p>In 2008, Virginia and Illinois both passed laws requiring colleges and universities to establish threat assessment teams. These laws apply to public higher education institutions in Virginia and to all higher education institutions in Illinois. In 2014, Connecticut also began requiring colleges and universities to be trained in campus threat assessment.</p><p>Additionally, in 2010 the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved a national standard for higher education risk analysis that is designed to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks at higher education institutions and to help colleges and universities better allocate resources and prepare for emergencies.</p><p>“It is recommended that threat assessment teams be put into place on campus to help identify potential persons of concern and gather and analyze information regarding the potential threat posed by an individual(s),” the standard says.</p><p>Behavioral threat assessment is now recognized as a best practice for preventing campus violence and workplace violence at colleges and universities. Using threat assessment procedures can help enhance safety in Title IX and Clery cases in which there is a potential for ongoing interpersonal violence or stalking behavior, victims fear for their safety, or threats have been made before or after a victim files a police report or student conduct complaint.</p><p>In cases such as these, however, adhering to provisions of Title IX and the Clery Act is not enough; steps should be taken to identify and assess whether any threats are posed to those involved in these investigations and to manage the situation to reduce any such risk.​</p><h4>Integrating Threat Assessments</h4><p>In an environment in which victims, advocates, and public servants commonly express concerns about campus response to sexual violence, colleges and universities must also assess threats while investigating these incidents and publishing crime statistics—as required by federal law.</p><p>To best address these safety concerns, the institution’s threat assessment team or behavioral intervention team should be involved to run a parallel threat assessment investigation that is separate from, but coordinated with, the institution’s Clery investigation.</p><p>This level of coordination requires some effort, but is vital and can be done using five steps to maintain victim safety and campus security during investigations.</p><p>Create a threat assessment team. Institutions should have a threat assessment team—or a similar multidisciplinary team that is trained in behavioral threat assessment and threat management. </p><p>The best threat assessment teams include representatives from student affairs, academic affairs, the counseling center, human resources, campus police or security, and ad hoc members who might be needed for particular cases, such as veterans’ services for cases involving veterans or international programs members for cases involving international students.</p><p>Once the team is assembled, it should be trained in behavioral threat assessment, have the authority to engage in threat assessment on behalf of the institution, have procedures to guide activities of the team, and have access to case management and support resources—on campus and in the community—to intervene where needed.</p><p>Having training in best practice procedures is critical to ensuring that the team is equipped to objectively assess any risk or threat posed, and to take appropriate steps to intervene to reduce risk and manage the situation going forward.</p><p>Many institutions have established threat assessment teams, but only a subset of them have ever been trained in threat assessment procedures. One institution, whose threat assessment team lacked qualified training, did not know how to handle a stalking case that was escalating and decided to call in outside expertise to reduce the prospect that the situation could turn violent. </p><p>If a team has not received training in threat assessment procedures, the group should make sure to check the qualifications of potential training vendors before hiring them.</p><p>Understand Clery requirements. All personnel involved in threat assessment and safety should know that the DOE has issued guidance on requirements that institutions face under Title IX and preamble comments on regulations issued to implement the VAWA revisions to the Clery Act.</p><p>Under these laws, colleges and universities must respond swiftly to reports of sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking—not just those involving a threat assessment investigation. </p><p>This response must include providing information on confidential sources for victims to talk to and explaining reporting options to victims. The response must also include information on disciplinary and law enforcement reporting options should victims decide to report an incident to law enforcement or to the student conduct office.</p><p>In addition to responding to reports of sexual violence, colleges and universities must also actively work to prevent such crimes, including providing institutionwide training for students and employees.</p><p>Some colleges and universities are implementing mandated online training courses for students, as well as for faculty and staff, to raise awareness about sexual violence and the importance of bystander intervention. </p><p>But prevention efforts can also involve outreach from an institution’s threat assessment team to encourage people to report potentially dangerous situations and behaviors to the team when they become aware of them, so quick action can be taken to mitigate and reduce risk. </p><p>To address these wide-ranging duties and the increasing number of reports, institutions should have dedicated investigators to handle their Clery-related cases and responsibilities. In many cases, institutions will need to hire or retain these individuals.</p><p><strong>Alert the team.</strong> Once an institution has a threat assessment team, those taking reports from victims must learn when to alert the team. </p><p>Although reports of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking are often referred to a Title IX coordinator or investigator, there may be ongoing safety concerns that should be addressed simultaneously and more broadly by a threat assessment team. If a report is made to an employee not designated as a “confidential employee,” that person can freely alert the threat assessment team. </p><p>Confidential employees include employees who are licensed medical, clinical, or mental-health professionals when acting in their professional role to provide services to a patient who is a university student. This category also includes university employees providing administrative, operational, and related support for healthcare providers performing these services.</p><p>Confidential employees are generally prohibited from reporting information to a college or university’s Title IX coordinator without permission from the individual who disclosed the information to them.</p><p>A confidential employee who receives a report should provide information about the threat assessment team to the victim or reporter, as well as provide options for reporting the incident and for safety planning. </p><p>If a risk is deemed sufficiently imminent to permit disclosure of privileged communications, the confidential employee could make other disclosures as necessary to promote safety. When victims better understand what a threat assessment team can do to enhance safety, they may be willing to have their situation reported to the team.</p><p><strong>Get legal advice.</strong> Teams should seek advice from the institution’s legal counsel on how to address situations in which a victim requests confidentiality or anonymity. </p><p>In 2014, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published guidance on Title IX issues that clarified a 2011 document on the limits of confidentiality in certain situations.</p><p>For instance, the OCR recognized that institutions may not be able to respect requests for confidentiality where circumstances suggest there is an increased risk of further violence. The OCR included examples of these circumstances, such as multiple complaints about that person, a history of violence and arrests, multiple perpetrators, patterns of perpetration, use of weapons, and threats to commit further violence.</p><p>Train and practice, together. Personnel involved in Clery cases and those involved in threat assessment matters can learn a great deal about each other’s methods, resources, and obligations when they spend time together—preferably not just on active cases.</p><p>Finding opportunities to train together in tabletop exercises, and to train each other on their respective jurisdictions and areas of expertise, will enhance coordination and cooperation when faced with a high-risk case.</p><p>One threat assessment team, which had received training on trauma-informed investigations from its institution’s Title IX coordinator, increased its awareness about the effects of trauma. As a result, the team changed its approach to interviews with complainants of stalking. </p><p>Since the training, the team now chooses—where possible—to give its questions to Title IX investigators to ask of a complainant to avoid subjecting the individual to yet another interview on the same matter. This process is designed to minimize stress and additional trauma. ​</p><h4>Outcomes </h4><p>In Sophia’s case, involving the college’s threat assessment team helped the institution get a more complete picture of her safety and any potential danger she faced as the investigation unfolded. </p><p>One of the first options the team suggested was that either the Student Conduct Office or the campus police department issue a “no-contact order.” A no-contact order prohibits contact—whether in person, by phone, email, text, social media, or through a third party—between individuals at an institution where the college or university feels it is necessary to impose such a boundary. </p><p>No-contact orders are often issued by student conduct officers when they are investigating potential violations of a student code of conduct. The orders do not require the same level of evidence required to obtain a court-issued restraining order or protective order—but they carry significant consequences if violated. </p><p>For instance, some institutions can take immediate disciplinary and protective action if an order is violated, such as immediate suspension or barring the individual from campus.</p><p>This is a tool administered solely by the college and did not require Sophia to file a police report, even if the campus police department issued the order.</p><p>Following best practice threat assessment procedures, the threat assessment team in Sophia’s case gathered information from multiple sources about her ex-boyfriend and his recent behaviors and communications. </p><p>The team was able to corroborate Sophia’s accounts of his stalking behavior and discovered a series of disturbing posts he made on social media that suggested he was experiencing increasing desperation, and may have been suicidal. </p><p>A member of the team conducted a conversation with the ex-boyfriend, confirming his growing level of desperation. The team then assessed that Sophia’s case required inter­vention to reduce risk.</p><p>First, the team’s representative from the campus police department asked campus police to immediately transport Sophia’s ex-boyfriend to the college’s counseling center for a safety assessment to determine if he was suicidal. </p><p>At the same time, the team’s representative from the counseling center notified personnel at the center about the transport and provided information to the mental health provider who was conducting the assessment, so the provider had appropriate background information to include in the assessment.</p><p>In addition, the team asked the college’s Residential Life Office if it could provide Sophia with emergency alternate housing so her ex-boyfriend would not know where she was living. Campus police also provided Sophia with safety planning and offered to escort her around campus, if she wanted that service. </p><p>Sophia’s ex-boyfriend followed the no-contact order and did not have any contact with Sophia throughout the student conduct process. The team remained involved in monitoring the case as it proceeded and in conducting a follow-up assessment after her ex-boyfriend was sanctioned by the college.</p><p>The team was actively involved in the case until it assessed that Sophia’s ex-boyfriend no longer posed a threat to her—which was several months after the conclusion of the investigation.</p><p>Finding ways to improve communication and coordinate efforts between Title IX/Clery personnel and threat assessment teams can help security protect students. A multidisciplinary approach to training, assessing threats, and responding to incident reports can help ensure a safer campus for all. </p><p>--<br></p><p><em>Marisa R. Randazzo, Ph.D., is a managing partner of SIGMA Threat Management Associates and former chief research psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service. Jeffrey J. Nolan, JD, is a partner at Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C. Dorian Van Horn is a senior consultant with SIGMA Threat Management Associates and former division chief of the Threat Management Unit for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. ​ ​</em></p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465