Transportation

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Evolution-of-Airport-Attacks.aspxThe Evolution of Airport AttacksGP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652017-04-01T04:00:00ZScott Stewart<p>​The bustling Brussels Airport in Zaventem, Belgium, handles more than 500 flights a day, bringing more than 27,000 passengers into the facility with approximately the same number departing. Mornings are particularly busy at the airport, and amid the flurry of activity, it is little wonder that on March 22, 2016, three men emerging from a taxi outside of the departures hall passed through unnoticed. </p><p>The trio loaded their heavy suitcases onto baggage carts and entered the flow of people heading through the doors toward the ticket desks. Shortly after they entered the departures hall, the three split up to take their places in separate ticket lines.</p><p>Three minutes later, one of the men detonated his suitcase bomb, which had been packed with nails, as he stood in one of the check-in lanes. Approximately nine seconds after that, the second man detonated his suitcase bomb in another lane. The third suitcase bomb did not detonate immediately; surveillance camera footage showed that after being thrown to the ground by the second blast, the third man, Mohamed Abrini, simply got up and walked away from the airport toward the city center. </p><p>It is unknown whether he left because he got cold feet or because his device failed to detonate, but he was later arrested and charged with participation in the attack. Police bomb technicians destroyed Abrini’s bomb-filled suitcase, which they report may have been the largest of the three, in a controlled explosion. </p><p>The attack at Zaventem resulted in 17 deaths. Another 14 victims were killed when a fourth suicide bomb was detonated an hour later in a subway train at the Maalbeek metro station in Brussels. The coordinated attack was the deadliest in Belgian history. It was also a lethal reminder of the continuing threat to the soft parts of airports outside security checkpoints. ​</p><h4>Evolving Tactics<img src="/ASIS%20SM%20Callout%20Images/0417%20Feeature%204%20Infographic.jpg" class="ms-rtePosition-2" alt="" style="margin:5px;width:466px;" /></h4><p>The air transit system has been considered a prime target since the beginning of the modern era of terrorism. From a terrorist’s perspective, hundreds of people trapped inside a pressurized metal tube at 30,000 feet are ideal targets not only because the victims are so vulnerable, but because of the heavy media coverage such attacks generate. </p><p>For example, the photos of TWA 847 pilot John Testrake in the plane’s cockpit window being held at gunpoint by a Hezbollah hijacker became some of the most iconic images of 1980s terrorism.</p><p>Terrorist threats to aircraft spurred a series of security improvements, which were in turn answered by changes in terrorist weapons and tactics. The evolutionary—and deadly—game of cat-and-mouse between terrorist planners and aviation security officials has been occurring since the 1960s.</p><p>Initially there was very little security provided to the air transportation system, but a sharp increase in commercial airline hijackings in the 1960s and early 1970s led to enhanced airline security in the United States and Europe. High-profile hijackings led to greater and more widespread improvements to aviation security worldwide. </p><p>As hijackings became more difficult to conduct, terrorists began to direct their attention to aircraft bombings. Palestinian bombmakers created plastic explosives to look like everyday items in increasingly elaborate efforts to bring them onto aircraft undetected. The result was a number of airline bombing plots in the 1980s using concealed devices. </p><p>In 1987, North Korean agents destroyed a plane using a device hidden inside a radio to set off liquid explosives hidden in a liquor bottle. In another incident in 1986, explosives and the detonating device were hidden in a suitcase under a false bottom and a pocket calculator. Security detected the device before it could be taken aboard the plane. </p><p>Perhaps the most famous of these bombings was Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, a bombing that killed 243 passengers, including two of my colleagues, U.S. Diplomatic Security Service Special Agents Dan O’Connor and Ron Lariviere. </p><p>Despite security improvements, terrorists continued to focus on attacking aircraft. In 1994, an attacker assembled a bomb in the aircraft lavatory and left it on board when he deplaned at an intermediate stop on the flight’s course. The bombing was a dry run for a more complex strike against multiple airlines. </p><p>When security measures were improved in the 1990s to defend against this style of attack, terrorists adapted once again. While planning the 9/11 attack, hijackers used permissible carry-on items—like box cutters—to hijack planes and turn them into human-guided cruise missiles. </p><p>In response to post-2001 security crackdowns to protect against that type of attack, jihadists again shifted their tactics toward onboard suicide attacks with hidden bombs. The first of these was the failed December 2001 shoe bomb attack. When security officers began screening shoes routinely, aspiring airline bombers then shifted to a plot to fill camouflaged toiletry containers in carry-on baggage with liquid explosives.</p><p>The U.S. Transportation Security Administration subsequently intro­duced restrictions on the quantity of liquids that passengers could bring aboard an aircraft, and, in turn, a jihadist attempted an attack with a device that was sewn into a suicide operative’s underwear. </p><p>Once security measures were amend­ed to address the threat of underwear bombs, attackers turned to cargo aircraft, hiding improvised explosive devices in printer cartridges bound for the United States. </p><p>And the deadly escalation continues today. In November 2015, a bomb concealed in a soda can was smuggled onto an airliner in Egypt, killing 217. Three months later, another bomb, this one disguised in a laptop, was smuggled aboard a flight in Somalia. Fortunately, that bomb only killed the suicide operative when it detonated and the aircraft was able to return to the airport for an emergency landing.</p><p>However, not all attacks on aviation involve hijacking or smuggling bombs aboard aircraft. Just as terrorists adjusted for heightened security at embassies by targeting traveling diplomats, attackers have found ways to attack airline passengers even as it has become more difficult to attack aircraft. </p><p>Back in the mid-1980s, terrorists attacked crowds of airline passengers beyond the confines of airport security at ticket counters in Rome and Vienna. In November 2002, al Qaeda operatives attempted to attack an Israeli airliner in Kenya with a surface-to-air missile. A 2011 attack at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport took advantage of the facility’s soft areas, as did the Brussels attack. </p><p>In the wake of the Rome and Vienna attacks, perimeter security at airports in Europe was temporarily increased, but due to the cost and effort involved, soon reverted to business as usual. </p><p>Similar short-term increases in security posture at airports across the globe were seen in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and to a lesser extent following Domodedovo.  </p><p>The targeting of the soft side of airports is especially attractive to grassroots groups and individuals who lack the ability to construct bombs sophisticated enough to be smuggled through security. </p><p>The July 4, 2002, armed assault against a ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport and the June 2007 attack against the Glasgow Airport using a poorly constructed vehicle bomb are examples of attacks against the soft side of airports by poorly trained grassroots jihadists.​</p><h4>Expanding Danger</h4><p>In response to recent attacks in Brussels and Istanbul against the soft side of airports, security has again been increased. However, in many places this increased security is not much more than a show of force intended to reassure the traveling public and to perhaps deter poorly trained would-be terrorists. Without names or bag checks, it is difficult to keep a professional terrorist—especially one who has a ticket—away from the facility. </p><p>In some places, more thorough checkpoints have been established away from the airport to conduct initial screening. This tactic can be quite effective at smaller airports, but cumbersome at larger, busier airports where the heavy volume of travelers causes a backlog at the inspection point, thus effectively pushing the target away from the building to the crowd of people awaiting screening.   </p><p>It is important to remember that the objective of terrorist planners is to create a high body count and a large amount of publicity. This means that an attack against the soft side of an airport can be almost as good as an attack against an aircraft, and a successful attack against an airport is better than a failed or thwarted attack against a harder target. </p><p>As the security at airports is pushed outward in response to attacks against the soft sides of airports, and checkpoints are established away from the building, this merely moves the real target—the vulnerable group of people awaiting screening from inside the building—to an area outside of it.   </p><p>This principle was demonstrated during the June 28, 2016, attack against Istanbul’s Ataturk International Airport. In that attack, three operatives armed with AK-47s and suicide vests launched an attack on the soft side of the airport. Coming in the wake of the Brussels attack, and due to the overall high terrorist threat inside of Turkey, security was increased at Turkish airports, and armed security checkpoints were established at the entrances to the departure hall to prevent terrorists from entering the hall like they did in Brussels. </p><p>Shortly after the three attackers exited their cab outside the departure hall, they were confronted by police and a firefight erupted between the police and the attackers. The first operative was able to approach the security checkpoint and detonate his device amid the crowd. This device shattered a large window that permitted the second attacker to enter the building and begin searching for a crowd of people to target with his suicide bomb. </p><p>Fortunately, the second attacker was shot and immobilized before he could do so. The third attacker was pursued by the authorities and detonated his device in a parking lot, causing minimal damage like the second bomber. Between the gunfire and the first bomb, however, 45 victims were killed—nearly three times more than in Brussels. The bulk of the victims were outside the security checkpoint at the door to the departure hall. ​</p><h4>Staying Ahead of the Game</h4><p>Moving the security checkpoint outward from the airport simply moves the chokepoint outward, and the crowd of people waiting to get through that checkpoint remains vulnerable. This principle applies to many circumstances and locations beyond airports as well, posing a significant challenge to security professionals. While not an easy problem to address, some methods exist to mitigate the threat.</p><p>First, static security checkpoints themselves are not enough. It is necessary to establish outward-looking protective surveillance that extends beyond the property line. This surveillance also needs to focus on preoperational surveillance rather than just attack recognition. Once the attackers start shooting or detonating bombs, it can be helpful to quickly counter them and limit their access to additional victims, but it is far better to catch them at an earlier phase of the terrorist attack cycle. </p><p>Many large international airports are using surveillance technology that identifies suspicious behavior and alerts operators. The information collected by these programs can be shared with nearby airports, allowing them to keep an eye out for similar activity on their premises. </p><p>Terrorists often follow an attack planning cycle and are vulnerable to detection as they conduct the surveillance they require to carry out an attack. Terrorist operatives generally possess poor surveillance tradecraft and are not difficult to spot if people are looking for them. </p><p>But cops or soldiers manning a checkpoint at a door are not normally well positioned to spot such activity. This, ideally, needs to be accomplished by specialized units that have been trained in the craft of detecting surveillance and who are not tasked with manning checkpoints. Teams such as these will patrol parking areas and other spaces further away from the airport to identify potential threats.</p><p>This type of technology and information sharing between airports is imperative because attackers may scope out multiple facilities in a region. It is important for security teams at different airports to foster information sharing by alerting their counterparts to anomalous behavior.</p><p>Surveillance must also go beyond the use of cameras and should use a combination of human agents and cameras integrated with analytic software that can be used to help expand and direct the efforts of the humans. Cameras with nobody watching them are little better than no cameras at all. They may be useful for investigating an attack after the fact, but will be of little help in preventing an attack.  </p><p>Even in a case where the preoperational surveillance is missed and an attack is underway, personnel located beyond checkpoints can help to see problems as they are developing rather than allowing attackers to gain tactical surprise by permitting them to have free rein in areas where they can assemble and coordinate their attack.  </p><p>Furthermore, undercover operators can enjoy tactical surprise themselves and are in a great position to turn the tables on the attackers. Action is always faster than reaction, and if the attackers are permitted to draw and shoot first, it gives them a significant advantage over security forces. </p><p>A failed attack against a soft target venue in Garland, Texas, in May 2015, showed that security personnel manning the door of a facility can gain a life-or-death advantage in a firefight if they have advanced warning and a description of a potential threat. </p><p>In the Garland case, the FBI alerted local authorities of a potential threat to the event and provided the suspect’s vehicle description. This passing of critical intelligence prepared local officers for an impending attack. It also highlights the importance of intelligence sharing both horizontally and vertically within the law enforcement and security communities as they seek to secure airports and other soft targets.  </p><p><em><strong>Scott Stewart </strong>is vice president of tactical analysis at Stratfor.com and lead analyst for Stratfor Threat Lens. ​</em></p>

Transportation

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Evolution-of-Airport-Attacks.aspx2017-04-01T04:00:00ZThe Evolution of Airport Attacks
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Insights-on-Asia.aspx2016-08-01T04:00:00ZInsights on Asia
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Police-Officer-Shoots-Man-Outside-Dallas-Airport.aspx2016-06-10T04:00:00ZPolice Officer Shoots Man At Dallas Love Field Airport
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Who’s-Staying-Over.aspx2016-06-01T04:00:00ZWho’s Staying Over?
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/TSA-Offers-Hands-On-Training-for-New-Hires.aspx2016-05-11T04:00:00ZTSA Offers Hands-on Training for New Hires
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Book-Review---Protecting-Transportation.aspx2016-05-01T04:00:00ZBook Review: Protecting Transportation
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Bottleneck-at-the-Border.aspx2016-03-01T05:00:00ZBottleneck at the Border
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Deadline-Derailment.aspx2016-02-16T05:00:00ZA Deadline Derailment
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Securing-European-Train-Travel.aspx2016-01-27T05:00:00ZSecuring European Train Travel
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Selling-a-Transit-Security-Project.aspx2015-08-17T04:00:00ZSelling a Transit Security Project
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/TSA-Managed-Inclusion-Program-to-be-Phased-Out.aspx2015-07-29T04:00:00ZTSA Managed Inclusion Program to be Phased Out
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Precheck-Problems.aspx2015-07-17T04:00:00ZPrecheck Problems
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/The-War-on-Human-Trafficking.aspx2015-05-18T04:00:00ZThe War on Human Trafficking
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Transit-Safety.aspx2015-01-01T05:00:00ZTransit Safety
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Fluid-Situation.aspx2014-12-01T05:00:00ZA Fluid Situation
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Practical-Aviation-Security-Predicting-and-Preventing-Further-Threats-Second-Edition.aspx2014-11-01T04:00:00ZPractical Aviation Security: Predicting and Preventing Further Threats, Second Edition
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/ferrying-the-masses.aspx2014-10-01T04:00:00ZFerrying the Masses
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Dangerous-Waters.aspx2014-08-01T04:00:00ZDangerous Waters

 You May Also Like...

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Selling-a-Transit-Security-Project.aspxSelling a Transit Security Project<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">Security is not a revenue generator in public transit, and security projects compete with numerous others within the corporate enterprise for funding. The top 75 transit agencies in the United States spend roughly 4 percent of their operating budget on security personnel and equipment, according to the Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transportation System Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning Guide.</span></p><p>To succeed, security must address this competition by presenting the project in corporate terms, evaluating traditional financial performance measures, such as return on investment and net present value. </p><p>Security should also promote a project’s cost-saving, a powerful method to quantify the value of investing in security. One transit system, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), in Atlanta used the cost savings of a camera analytics project to gain approval.</p><p>MARTA has numerous physical assets, including a network of video cameras that surveil 38 rail stations, 532 in-service buses, five bus garages, three rail yards, and other infrastructure located within the jurisdictions of 30 different law enforcement agencies in and around Atlanta.</p><p>The MARTA Police Department (MPD) is the longest-serving transit police agency in the country that is also certified by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement. The MPD is a full-time, full-service agency with more than 300 sworn officers, including detectives, uniform patrol, explosive detection units, and nearly 50 civilian staff members. </p><p>The MPD has more than 2,000 cameras covering the MARTA system, but found around-the-clock monitoring impractical due to boredom, distraction, and cognitive fatigue. A 24-hour monitoring program would also require additional facilities and manpower. </p><p>The MPD wanted to get the most out of its cameras and, in 2009, it began investigating how analytics could help. The road to implementing this solution required quantifying the value of a new technology amid competing priorities. Security advocates sometimes base their investment requests on the merits of an intangible perception of security, the consequences of not investing, or how the investment supports compliance with industry regulation. </p><p>But the MPD felt that these approaches fell short of providing the necessary comparative analysis. The MPD reasoned that its project would more likely find success if decision makers could easily compare projects seeking investment and evaluate quantifiable benefits that demonstrate a positive return on investment using the same scale.​</p><h4>Quantifying Benefits</h4><p>Security benefits are measured as the difference between the costs before and after project implementation. The cost benefits to MARTA needed to be researched to perform the return on investment analysis. </p><p>The MPD turned to Dr. Kendra C. Taylor, a MARTA consultant and associate vice president at AECOM, to conduct this research and analysis. She reviewed legislative requirements, industry benchmarks, risk assessments, and historic and anticipated costs to provide contextual material. Taylor’s financial analysis of costs was the most critical component because it would provide comparative numbers.</p><p>The first step in quantifying the benefits was to interview stakeholders whose day-to-day operations would be affected by the adaptive technology, including employees who would maintain the system after installation.</p><p>The next step was to explore potential scenarios to determine the types of costs involved. The third step was to collect data to estimate values for costs identified, and the fourth step was to perform analysis to determine the benefit value. This benefit value was used in the calculations for the return on investment.​</p><h4>Analysis</h4><p>The interviews with staff pointed to potential reduced costs associated with railcar vandalism, fare evasion, panhandling, liability, and rail incidents, making them the focus of the analysis. When presenting its findings to MARTA executives, the MPD provided a narrative, explaining each area of potential savings in lay terms with clearly stated costs and benefits.</p><p>Vandalism. Adaptive video technology can send alerts to stop acts of vandalism before they occur by identifying would-be vandals when they enter an area that is off limits. </p><p>For example, one evening, two MARTA railcars were covered extensively in graffiti while in the rail yard. The cars were out of service all day while they were being cleaned. </p><p>According to Ethel Williams, superintendent of railcar appearance at MARTA, the system suffers 20 acts of vandalism on railcars each year. Williams notes that the restorative costs of these incidents include almost a full day of labor and special cleaning supplies. In addition, fences are frequently damaged when the vandals enter the rail yard. Preventing these incidents would save MARTA more than $50,000 per year.</p><p>Fare evasion. In 2014, MARTA announced that fare evaders cost the transit authority an estimated $3.5 million per year.</p><p>Some of the tactics used to ride MARTA without paying include: waiting for a passenger to exit, then slipping through to enter before the gate closes; crowding through in the same direction after only one person taps his or her fare card; and simply pushing through a gate with brute force. </p><p>Adaptive video technology can detect this unusual movement and alert staff, who may review the footage on a smartphone and apprehend the person who evaded the fare.</p><p>The MPD reviewed historical analysis on fare evasion and conservatively estimated that MARTA would reclaim around $200,000 by using the pattern-detection element of adaptive video technology and hiring an officer to stand nearby.</p><p>Panhandling. It is illegal to panhandle on MARTA buses and trains and at MARTA stations. When a person stands out as moving from rider to rider along the platform, the adaptive video technology can send an alert for further investigation by MARTA personnel. </p><p>To quantify the value of having this technology on panhandling prevention, the project team considered the effect of panhandling on passengers’ perception of safety. It also considered the effect on lost ridership using customer feedback from ridership surveys and a study that tied the perception of safety to ridership. </p><p>The MPD estimated that around $50,000 in revenue loss would be prevented by addressing panhandling through the use of adaptive video technology.</p><p>Liability. Liability, in the form of slip-and-fall judgments, may result from wet or dangerous conditions at rail stations or other passenger facilities. In addition, when a passenger slips or falls, MARTA wants to address the matter quickly and accurately. </p><p>The adaptive technology may detect these conditions in advance of an accident and alert MARTA employees to address the condition before it contributes to an injury.</p><p>The MPD worked with Donna Jennings, director of risk management at MARTA, along with the authority’s safety and legal departments to get historical information on incidents where the new technology would have been valuable. </p><p>Using historical data on the costs of judgments and conservative estimates on the reduction in the number of judgments, the MPD was able to identify nearly $25,000 in cost savings.</p><p>Incidents. The greatest potential for cost savings was with the avoidance of rail incidents through alerts from the adaptive video technology. Several past incidents of passengers stumbling, falling, or purposefully jumping into the train right of way were caught on video. </p><p>This video was used forensically, but it has the potential to be used in real time in the future for significant cost savings each year to alert MARTA personnel to stop a train before hitting a fallen patron.</p><p>Potential cost savings include avoidance of legal costs, settlement costs, costs to restore the train and station, lost revenue from buses removed from other service to transport impacted travelers, and lost ridership during and after the restoration period. The up to $2 million annually in identified costs that could be avoided, while significant financially, are negligible compared to the value of a life saved.​</p><h4>Success</h4><p>Part of the cost of doing business is protecting assets. The project team was able to make the case that the quantifiable benefits of investing in adaptive video technology to prevent intentional and accidental damage were justified. The return on investment proved to exceed investment costs by a factor of two or three, with a payback period of less than two years. </p><p>This type of analysis helped decision makers compare this investment with other opportunities in the portfolio. The conclusion was favorable for security, and the system integration began in 2012 and is ongoing. </p><p>--</p><p><em><strong>Aston Greene</strong> is the commander of MARTA’s Emergency Preparedness Unit.</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/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/TSA-Offers-Hands-On-Training-for-New-Hires.aspxTSA Offers Hands-on Training for New Hires<div><br></div><div><p>​​It's no secret–the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been heavily criticized​ for long lines at passenger screening areas in airports. And with summer travel approaching, the agency is under-the-gun to address the issue. <span style="line-height:1.5em;">But tr</span><span style="line-height:1.5em;">ansportation security officers have to do more t</span><span style="line-height:1.5em;">han simply process passengers in a timely manner. Detecting prohibited items, including weapons and possibly explosives, is at the top of the priority list.</span><br></p><p>The TSA says that's why it started a training academy at a Federal Law Enforcement​ Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. Established in January of this year, the TSA Academy is the agency's effort to standardize training for new​​ly hired transportation security officers.</p><p><em>Security Management</em>'s Holly Gilbert Stowell got an inside-look at the academy and what trainees learn over the two-week period, from explosives detection to a roleplay in a mock airport screening area.​​​</p></div><p></p><div class="ms-rtestate-read ms-rte-wpbox"><div class="ms-rtestate-notify ms-rtestate-read 7771bac8-d988-429b-9f2a-f41b989289b8" id="div_7771bac8-d988-429b-9f2a-f41b989289b8" unselectable="on"></div><div id="vid_7771bac8-d988-429b-9f2a-f41b989289b8" unselectable="on" style="display:none;"></div></div><div><br></div>GP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465