Update on DHS Fencing Project from DHS

Well ladies and gents, it appears the Department of Homeland Security got a bit upset at the Wall Street Journal for its article I mentioned earlier. This is the DHS's reply:

The Wall Street Journal Inaccurately Asserts That First 28 Miles of the Virtual Fence Will Be the Last: "But The Problems That have plagued the high-tech barrier mean that the fence's first 28 miles will also likely be its last. The Department of Homeland Security now says it doesn't plan to replicate the Boeing Co. initiative anywhere else." ("US Curbs Big Plans for Border Tech Fence," The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2008)

But, P28 was a proof of concept and a building block. It was never intended to be replicated across the entire border: “Let me remind everybody, of course, the border is not just a uniform place. It is a very complicated mix of different kinds of environments -- ranging from urban areas, where the distance between the border and a major transportation hub is measured in maybe less than a mile, to very remote and desolate rural areas or wilderness areas, where there's really, frankly, quite a bit more distance to be covered and therefore a lot more flexibility in how and when you interdict those crossing the border. That's why SBI Net, as a critical element, has been designed to be a flexible tool. It is not a cookie cutter approach. What applies in one stretch of the border is not going to be what applies in another stretch. What will be common, however, is that all of the stretches and all of the tools will be integrated and bound together.” (Transcript of Press Briefing by Secretary Chertoff on the Awarding of the SBInet Contract, 9/21/06)

It's an out-of-the box concept: "I would say it is a partial model for the future. I think that it was a concept. We wanted to make sure that, A, there's the basic concept functionality work and, B, the thought was to give the contractor an opportunity to present something that essentially thought out of the box, that wasn't just a follow-on to the traditional way of doing business." (Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing on the Fiscal 2009 Budget for the Department of Homeland Security, 2/14/08)

And, we'll use more technologies at the border: "…by the end of this calendar year, we will be a 670 miles of barriers. Plus, we will have deployed 40 what we call mobile surveillance systems. That is ground-based radar. We will have our P-28 system, and begin to employ other camera-based and sensor-based systems…we will have substantially put either real or virtual fencing or barriers across the entire border." (Secretary Chertoff at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on the Fiscal 2009 Budget for the Department of Homeland Security, 2/13/08)

The Wall Street Journal Claims That DHS Will Be Mothballing the Concept Behind the Virtual Fence: "The effective mothballing of the concept is a setback for the government's border-protection efforts, an embarrassment for politicians backing the idea of an electronic fence and a blow to Boeing, the project's designer." ("US Curbs Big Plans for Border Tech Fence," The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2008)

But, that's wrong: Technology used for P28 will continue to be deployed along the border. In fact, the FY09 budget requests $775 million for SBI to continue the development and deployment of technology and tactical infrastructure on the border.

The Wall Street Journal Erroneously Reports That DHS Issued Boeing a New Contract to Fix the P28 Common Operating System: "In early December, the government said it was closing in on taking delivery. But that same month, the government gave Boeing another $64 million contract to fix the "common operating picture," which lets agents in vehicles see imagery from the towers' surveillance systems." ("US Curbs Big Plans for Border Tech Fence," The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2008)

But, this contract was to develop the new Common Operational Picture and to enhance systems capabilities for future deployments as initially planned. ("DHS Moves Forward on Border Fencing and Technology Improvements", December 7, 2007)

All I have to say is, "Wow!" I understand this was supposed to be just a "proof-of-concept" to see if this would work across the board. And I don't think this was supposed to be our only lines of "defense". But I do think DHS has to step-up the deployment a notch. If it's working like Secretary Chertoff says, then let's get this thing rolling.

According to most immigration watchdogs and other concerned parties, every day wasted testing or delaying is another day wasted keeping bad guys out. If I live in a really bad neighborhood and all I have is a big mean guard dog and pistol to protect my home, this may work to some extent. It does not keep intruders from gaining in the first place and may not achieve the results I had intended as well as welcoming me up to substantial liabilities.

As I welcome the idea of a "virtual fence", I believe we have to have other means to secure our borders. In addition to new technologies, we need new tactics and methodologies when dealing with our current immigration debacle. That's the end of me being political but I hope you get the picture.

And you thought you had fencing issues...

Ladies and gents, it appears the United States' "virtual fence" has run into some snags, according to Security Management. I won't even go into how a CCTV system is as only good as its operators and software/hardware platforms. Nor will I mention the same goes for IDS as well. I won't even go into how with all CCTV and IDS systems your biggest weakness lies in the money you're willing to spend to fix your problem (porous borders). I will, however, talk a bit about the virtual fence and what it means for us as a citizenry and as professionals in this field.

The Washington Post broke the story with its report that despite the Bush Administration's approval of the fence this past Friday, the construction and implementation of the fence will have to be delayed by at least three years.

It appears there we were technical problems from a prototype system as well as a test system located along a stretch of the border in Arizona. According to the report, the problems included:

1. According to the Washington Post, "Boeing's use of inappropriate commercial software, designed for use by police dispatchers, to integrate data related to illicit border-crossings. Boeing has already been paid $20.6 million for the pilot project, and in December, the DHS gave the firm another $65 million to replace the software with military-style, battle management software."

2. According to the Washington Post, "Technology originally central to the project, such as mobile radar/sensor towers, has been dropped, the article reports, in favor of "[m]ore traditional ground-based radar and airborne surveillance drones," according to Business Week."

This past Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asserted in his blog, "I’ve seen this system work with my own eyes, and I’ve talked with the Border Patrol Agents who are using it. They assure me that it adds value. That’s what matters to me, and it’s a fact that cannot be denied."

While the virtual fence is better than what we currently have, I'm having trepidations about a system that has so many setback and issues which are core to its very success. For more information click here for the Post's article on the virtual fence or here for the full article from Security Management.

A Little Bit About Being Plane Stupid

Sorry, I couldn't resist the title. Earlier, I wrote a bit about the events that took place this week in the UK. Let's look at the group responsible for the Parliament actions - Plane Stupid.

According to The Guardian, "Plane Stupid was created three years ago after a group of anti-Iraq War protesters found common cause in the government's expansionist aviation policy.

The group conducts what are known as "direct action" operations. These require no overhead support and require no upper leadership approval when a target of opportunity has been discovered. Some of their ops have included the storming of the BAA's appearance at the transport select committee last November and chaining themselves to the gates of Farnborough airport – the main UK hub for private jets. 27-year-old Richard George is said to have co-founded the group with 34-year-old Greenpeace employee Graham Thompson in 2005.

The Guardian report also notes the group is made up of five members who are educated, middle class, and young. It operates on anarchist principles and describes itself as a "devolved network of autonomous groups" numbering around 150 dedicated activists. It has no designated leader and reaches all decisions by consensus.

Does this sound familiar? I'm beginning to see a lot of duplication when it comes to celluar structures of nonconformist organizations like this and others. What makes their statements about how they carried out the Westminster op so realistic is their age and education level. They're are all very smart and young enough. I bet at one point they even used student ID's to get past security. When protecting government institutions, we must look at all areas of vulnerabilities. This includes but does not exclude students and young people. If your too lackadaisical and think they're just kids, remember most of the 9/11 hijackers were all in this profile except they weren't white.

Big Ben, Heathrow, and Climate-Change Terorrists

Today, I read a news report from Great Britain's newspaper, The Guardian, which reminded me of all the times I said, "I'm sure glad I wasn't working yesterday." Ladies and gents, over the past few days, our great ally has been besieged by "climate-change terrorists." Okay, so I'm exaggerating a bit. But there were some serious security breaches both at Heathrow and at the Houses of Parliament.

Yesterday, five protesters from a group calling themselves "Plane Stupid" climbed atop the roof of the Houses of Parliament. The displayed two banners reading "No third runway" and "BAA HQ". Okay, I know there's a ton of speculation as to how this could have happened. Well, the police speculate they had an insider who provided them with access and who offered to store the signs. How else could they have gotten past security especially at Parliament? The protesters, of course, claim they brought the signs in past security and merely told the guards they were there to hear a debate on the floor. Either way it goes, somebody is in a lot of you-know-what.

According to SkyNews, Greenpeace protesters gained access to the roof of a Boeing 777 outside of Terminal 1 on Monday. For what? They were protesting Heathrow's planned expansion. For those who have traveled through Heathrow, you might agree climate change aside it could use the expansion. And maybe some maps and arrows that made sense. I digress. To say the least this was a major breach of security for an airport that has repeatedly been targeted by terrorists of all types to include Al-Qaeda and the IRA. Police and security units were able to respond and remove the protesters who posed no significant threat except to Heathrow's PR image. The protesters did carry signs which denounced the changed. It should be noted Virgin Airlines flew out of this same airport on the same day flying a bio-diesel jet which is supposed to reduce greenhouse gases from commuter jets.