Legal Issues Online May 2017GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652017-05-01T04:00:00Z<h4>​AFTER THE ACTIVE SHOOTER</h4><p>On February 14, 2008, less than a year after a senior at Virginia Tech murdered 32 people on campus, Northern Illinois University (NIU) was the scene of a similar tragedy. A former NIU graduate student walked onto the stage of a lecture hall and began firing on students and faculty. That tragedy left six people dead, including the perpetrator. The United States Fire Administration compiled an <a href="/ASIS%20SM%20Documents/AAR%20Northern%20Illinois%20Univ%20Shooting%202008%20tr_167.pdf">after-action report </a>on the NIU incident. The report explains that NIU had studied the official report on the Virginia Tech shooting and was better prepared as a result.</p><h4>ROOT CAUSES OF RISK</h4><p><em><a href="" target="_blank">The Meaning of Security in the 21st Century,</a></em> a new global study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, finds that large-scale sources of societal conflict—including resource scarcity, ethnic and religious differences, poverty, and income inequality—drive many security risks. </p><h4>CYBER INSURANCE</h4><p>Insurers are still in the process of amassing data to price risks for a cyber incident that results in data theft, <a href="/ASIS%20SM%20Documents/CyberBrief_Knake_Cyber-Insurance_OR.pdf">according to a brief </a>from the Council on Foreign Relations’ Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program.</p><h4>CHILD REFUGEES</h4><p><a href="" target="_blank">A Quilliam report</a> documents the migrant journey for children and unaccompanied minors and the risks they face. </p><h4>RESILIENCE</h4><p>The Rockefeller Foundation’s international resilience project, Resilient Cities, which aims to build resilience in cities around the world, <a href="" target="_blank">has released a new report</a> on Dakar, Senegal, the first city in Africa to release its own city resilience strategy. </p><h4>CYBERSECURITY </h4><p>Despite being unable to accurately price risks associated with cyberattacks, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ <em><a href="/ASIS%20SM%20Documents/reaping-dividends-cyber-resilience.pdf">Insurance 2020 & Beyond: Reaping the Dividends of Cyber Resilience</a></em> projects that the cyber insurance market will increase from $2.75 billion to $7.5 billion by 2020.</p><h4>ACCESS CONTROL </h4><p>A <a href="/ASIS%20SM%20Documents/HID-access-report-FINAL.pdf">September 2016 report from HID and IFSEC Global</a> takes a look at access control trends in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Among the findings: 30 percent of companies use encrypted access control credentials, and 81 percent require a higher level of security for access to certain areas. </p><h4>FREE SPEECH</h4><p>U.S. police officers have the right to complain about their jobs on social media, a <a href="" target="_blank">U.S. federal court of appeals recently ruled</a>. The court struck down a police department’s social media policy, which it said acted as a “virtual blanket prohibition on all speech critical of the government employer.”</p><h4>WARRANTS</h4><p>A U.S. judge ordered Google to comply with an FBI search warrant to provide customer emails stored outside the United States. <a href="" target="_blank">The order</a> is in direct conflict with a previous court ruling, which said Microsoft did not have to provide data to the FBI that was stored in Ireland.</p><h4>NATIONAL SECURITY</h4><p>The U.S. Department of the Treasury<a href=""> eased sanctions </a>on Russia to allow cybersecurity transactions with the Russian Federal Security Service to resume.</p>

Legal Issues Online May 2017 Report Resources May 2017 Report April 2017 Report Resources April 2017$110-Million-To-Settle-Class-Action-Lawsuits.aspx2017-03-29T04:00:00ZWells Fargo To Pay $110 Million To Settle Class Action Lawsuits Report March 2017 Online March 2017 Report March 2017 Report February 2017 Review: Litigation Report January 2017 Report Resources 2017 2016 Legal Report Online December 2016 Report Resources December 2016 and Security: The Risks of Arming Security Officers of Threats Report November 2016 Online November 2016 Report Resources November 2016

 You May Also Like... Report April 2017<h4>​U.S. JUDICIAL DECISIONS</h4><p>Fraud. Volkswagen will plead guilty to three U.S. criminal felony counts and pay a $2.8 billion penalty to resolve a U.S. federal criminal investigation into its cheating on emissions tests. </p><p>The plea is the result of Volkswagen’s long-running scheme to sell roughly 590,000 diesel vehicles in the United States by using a device designed to cheat emissions tests, which are mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).</p><p>Volkswagen, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), participated in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and its U.S. customers and to violate the Clean Air Act by misleading regulators and customers about whether its diesel vehicles complied with U.S. emissions standards. </p><p>Volkswagen also pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for destroying documents related to the scheme and to a separate crime of importing vehicles that did not comply with U.S. emissions limits into the country.</p><p>“Under the terms of the plea agreement, which must be accepted by the court, Volkswagen will plead guilty to all these crimes, will be on probation for three years, will be under an independent corporate compliance monitor who will oversee the company for at least three years, and agrees to fully cooperate in the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation and prosecution of individuals responsible for these crimes,” the DOJ said in a statement.</p><p>A federal grand jury also indicted six former Volkswagen executives for their roles in the cheating scheme: Heinz-Jakob Neusser, former head of development; Jens Hadler, former head of engine development; Richard Dorenkamp, former head of engine development after-treatment department; Bernd Gottweis, former supervisor responsible for quality management and product safety; Oliver Schmidt, former general manager in charge of the environment and engineering office; and Jürgen Peter, part of the quality management and product safety group.</p><p>Volkswagen engineers began designing a new diesel engine in 2006 to meet U.S. emissions standards that would go into effect in 2007. The engine was marketed as a “clean diesel” engine, but Volkswagen soon realized that it could not design an engine to meet the stricter standards and attract sufficient customer demand in the United States. So, Volkswagen decided to use a software function to cheat U.S. emissions tests.</p><p>“Volkswagen engineers working under Dorenkamp and Hadler designed and implemented software to recognize whether a vehicle was undergoing standard U.S. emissions testing on a dynamometer (device for measuring force) or it was being driven on the road under normal driving conditions,” the DOJ said. “If the software detected that the vehicle was not being tested, it operated in a different mode, in which the vehicle’s emissions control systems were reduced substantially, causing the vehicle to emit [mono-nitrogen oxides] up to 40 times higher than U.S. standards.”</p><p>This new engine model was installed in Volkswagen vehicles beginning in 2009. The vehicles were then imported to the United States. To legally sell the vehicles in the United States, the coconspirators allegedly lied to the EPA about the existence of the test-cheating software.</p><p>In 2014, West Virginia University’s Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions published a study commissioned by the International Council on Clean Transportation. The study found “substantial discrepancies” for Volkswagen vehicles when tested on the road compared to when they were undergoing EPA and other tests on dynamometers. </p><p>Instead of telling the truth about the testing, however, Volkswagen employees—including Neusser, Gottweis, Schmidt, and Peter—attempted to disclose as little information as possible to U.S. regulators, customers, and the public. </p><p>U.S. regulators followed up with Volkswagen to determine why the discrepancies in testing were occurring. But in “implementing their strategy of disclosing as little as possible, Neusser, Gottweis, Schmidt, Peter, and their co-conspirators” provided regulators with “testing results, data, presentations, and statements in an attempt to make it appear that there were innocent mechanical and technological problems to blame, while secretly knowing that the primary reason for the discrepancy was their cheating software that was installed in every Volkswagen diesel vehicle sold in the United States,” the DOJ explained.</p><p>Volkswagen used this strategy with regulators for more than 18 months, successfully obstructing attempts to uncover the truth. </p><p>In a separate civil case, Volkswagen will pay $1.5 billion for violating EPA regulations and for customs fraud. The agreement with the EPA in the civil case also requires injunctive relief to prevent future violations. It also resolves alleged violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. (U.S. v. Volkswagen, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 16-CR-20394, 2017)</p><p><strong>Surveillance.</strong> European Union (EU) member states may not impose general obligations on electronic communications services to retain data, the EU Court of Justice ruled. </p><p>The decision was a blow to the recently enacted U.K. Investigatory Powers Law, which allows the U.K. Home Department to require public telecommunications operators to retain all data related to communications for up to 12 months. The U.K. law was enacted in 2016 to replace the expiring Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) that was passed in 2014.</p><p>U.K. Member of Parliament Tom Watson and Brexit Secretary David Davis filed suit against DRIPA in 2014, and the U.K. High Court found parts of it to be unlawful and incompatible with EU law.</p><p>The U.K. government appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the EU Court of Justice. It found that EU law precludes the “general and indiscriminate” retention of electronic communications traffic data and location data.</p><p>“The fact that the data is retained without users of electronic commu­nications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance,” the court wrote. “Consequently, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such interference.”</p><p>The court ruled that EU member states can—as a preventive measure—create provisions for targeted retention of electronic communications data to fight serious crime, “provided that such retention is, with respect to the categories of data to be retained, the means of communication affected, the persons concerned, and the chosen duration of retention, limited to what is strictly necessary.”</p><p>The court also explained that access to the data by national authorities must be subject to conditions, including being reviewed by an independent autho­rity and being retained within the European Union.</p><p>The U.K. law “exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society,” the court added. The U.K. government plans to appeal the ruling to the EU Court of Appeals because it has not completed Brexit and is still subject to EU law. (Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Tom Watson and Others, Court of Justice of the European Union, No. C-698/15, 2016)​</p><h4>U.S. LEGISLATION</h4><p><strong>Email.</strong> The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would update privacy protections for electronic communications stored by third-party service providers.</p><p>The Email Privacy Act (H.R. 387) would update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to require all U.S. government agencies to obtain a warrant to search Americans’ online communications, regardless of when the email was written. The ECPA currently allows the U.S. government to search any email that is more than 180 days old that’s stored on a third-party server, such as a Google or Yahoo server, without a warrant.</p><p>The bill was introduced in the 114th U.S. Congress and passed the House of Representatives unanimously, but stalled in the Senate.</p><p>“As a result of Congress’s failure to keep pace with technological developments, every American is at risk of having their emails warrantlessly searched by government agencies,” said bill cosponsor Representative Kevin Yoder (R-KS) in a statement. “It’s simple, in 2017 if the federal government wants to access Americans’ digital content, it must get a warrant.”</p><p>The bill has nine bipartisan cosponsors and has been sent to the Senate for consideration.​</p><h4>U.S. REGULATIONS</h4><p>Privacy. U.S. agencies published a final rule that requires contract employees who handle personally identifiable information (PII) or work with a system of records to complete privacy training. </p><p>The rule was crafted by the U.S. Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It requires contract employees who handle PII to receive initial and annual privacy training on working with PII and the contractor’s incident response plan. </p><p>The privacy training must address the safeguarding of PII or a system of records, and should be “role-based, provide foundational as well as more advanced levels of training, and have measures in place to test the knowledge level of users,” according to the rule.</p><p>Contractors are also required to maintain documentation on employees’ privacy training and provide it to the agencies upon request.</p><p>The rule applies to contractors and subcontractors at or below the simplified acquisition threshold of approximately $150,000 and to contracts and subcontracts for commercial items.  ​</p><h4>OTHER LEGISLATION</h4><p><strong>​Wildlife Trafficking</strong>. China will ban all ivory commerce by the end of 2017 following years of growing pressure to shut down the world’s largest ivory market.</p><p>The shutdown of the market will occur in phases, according to China’s State Council, and the first step was the closure of legal ivory processing factories and businesses by March 31. The Ministry of Culture will now transition ivory to museums and other cultural institutions, and assist ivory workers to find related vocations.</p><p>Additionally, China will strengthen law enforcement supervision, publicity, and education to crack down on illegal processing of ivory within the nation.</p><h4>Elsewhere in the Courts</h4><p><strong>Corruption</strong></p><p>Brazilian global construction conglomerate Odebrecht S.A. and petrochemical company Braskem pleaded guilty and agreed to pay penalties of at least $3.5 billion to resolve U.S., Brazilian, and Swiss charges of bribery. The two companies used a business unit, dubbed a “Department of Bribery” by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), to systematically pay hundreds of millions of dollars to corrupt government officials in countries around the world to win business. “The criminal conduct was directed by the highest levels of [Odebrecht], with the bribes paid through a complex network of shell companies, off-book transactions, and off-shore bank accounts,” according to the DOJ. (U.S. v. Odebrecht S.A., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 16-643 (RJD), 2017; U.S. v. Braskem, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 16-644 (RJD), 2017) </p><p><strong>Firearms</strong></p><p>A U.S. appeals court found that California’s 10-day waiting period to purchase a firearm is a reasonable safety precaution for all individuals seeking to purchase a gun, regardless of whether they have purchased a gun in the state before. In a lawsuit challenging California’s law that created the waiting period, the appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision, finding that the law does not violate plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution because the waiting period is a “reasonable precaution for the purchase of a second or third weapon, as well as for a first purchase.” (Silvester v. Harris, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 14-16840, 2016)</p><p><strong>Breaks</strong></p><p>Employees on rest breaks must be relieved of all of their duties, the California Supreme Court ruled, finding that a security firm violated state law by requiring security guards to carry phones and radios and remain on call during rest breaks. “California law requires employers to relieve their employees of all work-related duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods,” the court wrote. The suit was brought by security guards employed by ABM Security Services, Inc. (Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., Supreme Court of California, No. S224853, 2016)</p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465 and Security: The Risks of Arming Security Officers<p>​Cinemark was not to blame for the 2012 shooting at its Aurora, Colorado, movie theater where gunman James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 more. A jury did not find a <a href="" target="_blank">lawyer’s argument compelling</a> that Cinemark should have provided armed security officers at the premier for <em>The Dark Knight Rises</em> because it was anticipating large crowds.</p><p>But should Cinemark have? Debates about armed security officers have flared up in the media and public discourse over the past few years. With the combination of a uniform and a firearm, armed officers may suggest a sense of security to the greater public, signaling that a business takes security and protection seriously. Others believe the presence of a gun merely stands to escalate dangerous situations.<br></p><p>The debate over the effect of firearms in such settings will not be settled anytime soon. But there are some things we do know about the consequences of arming security officers. Looking at it from an insurance perspective gives us a vantage to examine the risks and real-life consequences of arming security officers.<br></p><p><strong>Demand for Officers</strong><br></p><p>There are more than 1 million private security officers in the United States and about 650,000 police officers, according to the federal <a href="" target="_blank">Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)</a>. After several years of steep increases in the number of security officers, the field is expected to grow by a steady 5 percent every year, the BLS estimates. Private security officers, more and more, are the face of security in the United States.</p><p>In some industries, such as healthcare, armed officers are a growing presence. Crime in healthcare facilities is a serious issue, so hospitals are looking to provide stronger security. The percentage of healthcare facilities that reported staffing armed officers in 2014 was almost double the rate four years prior, according to an <a href="" target="_blank"><em>article in The New York Times. </em><br></a></p><p>“To protect their corridors, 52 percent of medical centers reported that their security personnel carried handguns and 47 percent said they used Tasers,” the Times reported, citing a 2014 survey by the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety.<br></p><p>As discussed in a previous <em></em><a href="/Pages/The-Dangers-of-Protection-What-Makes-a-Guard-Firm-Low--or-High-Risk.aspx" target="_blank"><em>Security Management </em>article,</a> there’s been a pronounced demand for insurance for armed security officers at legal marijuana facilities. We can always expect there to be demand for armed officers at government facilities, though the demand at schools has decreased slightly.<br></p><p><strong>Pros and Cons of Armed Officers</strong><br></p><p>Many people perceive armed security officers favorably as a deterrent against violence and an assurance that a violent incident can be quickly quelled. From a client’s standpoint, it offers a perception of higher protection.</p><p>Armed security officers are widely accepted as warranted in certain locations where the threat level matches the use of force. Government contracts and high-profile corporate executives are protected by highly trained armed officers. At banks, the risk of robbery also justifies an armed officer.<br></p><p>But from an insurance and risk standpoint, it is difficult to craft a convincing argument for armed security officers in many settings. The presence of a gun is not proven to de-escalate a situation in every environment, and it is unlikely to deter violent and determined individuals. The presence of an additional firearm—even in an officer’s hands—only stands to increase the risk of casualties. This is particularly true of public or crowded environments, like stadiums, schools, and restaurants.<br></p><p>By looking at insurance claims, it’s clear that when a security officer discharges his or her gun, the resulting claims are serious. There is a big difference between an officer using mace and an officer using a gun. Claims resulting from the use of firearms are likely to breach insurance policy limits, so firms employing armed security officers are wise to purchase higher limits of liability than firms not employing armed officers.<br></p><p>When someone is shot by a security officer, his—or his estate—will likely sue the business that contracted the officer. And the security firm and officer are going to be brought into the suit as well—no matter how well-trained the officer. If it goes to trial, it is very rare for a judge and jury to believe use of the weapon was justified. It is almost always perceived as excessive force.<br></p><p>The insurance marketplace for security firms is very small, and employing armed officers reduces the market even further. This means firms that provide armed officers will be paying a higher premium for less coverage; they will most likely be relegated to the surplus lines insurance market, which can mean more policy exclusions. Therefore, it’s important for the security firm to weigh the increased costs and policy limitations of taking on an armed contract.<br></p><p><strong>Mitigating Risks of Armed Officers</strong><br></p><p>If a client insists on armed officers, there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of an officer discharging his or her weapon. </p><p>All officers should be checked against lists of individuals who are not permitted to carry firearms, in addition to the usual criminal background check. For armed posts, staff them with off-duty or former law enforcement officers; police receive extensive firearms training, as well as other training that helps them de-escalate challenging situations.<br></p><p>Consider local or state licensing requirements for armed security officers—they can vary by municipality. In some states, armed officers are not required to have special firearms training. For those states that do, officers and clients can be protected by ensuring that officers are trained to use firearms. Situational training, which is recommended for all officers, is particularly important for armed security officers as it teaches them to understand a judicious use of force for the environment they serve.<br></p><p>There are no easy, blanket answers to the question of whether to arm security officers. But looking at the risks and financial implications might help security leaders make decisions on a case-by-case basis.<br></p><p><em>Tory Brownyard is the president of Brownyard Group, a program administrator that pioneered liability insurance for security guard firms more than 60 years ago. He can be reached at or 1-800-645-5820.</em><br></p><p><br></p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465 Review: The Process of Investigation<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">The process of investigation is relevant for a wide array of security professionals </span><span style="line-height:1.5em;">both in the private and public sectors, including corporate investigators, attorneys, loss prevention specialists, and law enforcement personnel.</span></p><p><i>The Process of Investigation</i> sets out to address the needs of today’s private sector investigative professionals. Through 24 chapters, the authors provide a practical guide to conducting comprehensive investigations. Five main sections take the reader through fundamentals, methods, building a case, applying strategies, and using technology and other specialized investigative techniques. Among the topics explored in detail are qualities of the investigator, surveillance, interviews, report writing, and targeted violence.</p><p>The book has something interesting for all readers who work with investigations or just want to know more about the art and science. There is a lot of information for people new to the investigative area, and there is also something for the more experienced practitioner. Examples from real investigations help readers place the theory into a practical context. A point well made is that investigative success often comes from “applying common sense and uncommon persistence.”</p><p>Although the book takes an American view of investigation, most of the material is applicable for international use, and it should find a well-deserved place on the investigative professional’s bookshelf.</p><p><em><strong>Reviewer: Poul Nielsen,</strong> PCI, is an intelligence analyst and OSINT consultant at The Copenhagen Police Department. He has previously worked as a robbery detective and investigative consultant for several international companies. He serves on the ASIS International Investigations Council.</em></p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465