Showing posts with label Law Enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Enforcement. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

10 Ways to Mitigate The Risks and Issues Associated With Theft From Motor Vehicles



When I was stationed in England, one of the most pressing issues we faced was theft from motor vehicles. It seemed like everyday I received a report a US service member had something stolen from their vehicle. What amazed me was not the item stolen but the simplicity required in helping prevent and mitigate the issues surrounding these thefts. Here a few simple things you can do:

  1. If you leave it on your car seat, it WILL get stolen. There's no question in mind if you leave something of any value in your vehicle in plain view, it is not a matter of if but when it will be stolen. Take your valuables and secure them. If it has to remain in the vehicle, place it in your trunk. If you can take it inside, take it inside. NEVER EVER leave valuables in your car overnight. Period.
  2. Remember when I said "anything of value"? Well that also includes your GPS. The most common things most people forget to take in their homes, at the end of the day, is their detachable GPS unit. Take it inside. If you have to leave it in the car, lock it and the mount you use in the trunk. Also ensure your window doesn't have the infamous "GPS markers" - the residue left when the mount's suction piece is disconnected from your window. This is a "tell" that you have stuff of value possibly still in the vehicle.
  3. Limit things that tell everyone that you routinely store valuable things in your vehicles. If you're a cop, limit the "Thin Blue Line" or FOP stickers. It tells potential thieves that on occasion (perhaps today) you leave a gun or other department-issued gear in the vehicle. If you're in IT, now might a good time to take the ethernet cables and the old router boxes and leave them in the office or at home. Again, this tells thieves the wrong thing.
  4. Park your car in a lighted area in plain view of you and other pedestrians, passing motorists, and police officers. Most people think if they hide something, then thieves are less likely to attack. That is not the case always. Chances are you're not near as good as hiding stuff as you think. If you can't move the car to a well-lit area, at least consider moving it somewhere closer to your home.
  5. Your locked door means nothing. People normally laugh when I say this. I suspect this has to do with the fact that they forget that most thieves prefer easy methods of entry. If it's on the front seat and they want it, they will choose the path of least resistance - your windows.
  6. Get an alarm but actually go outside and turn it off when it annunciates. One of the biggest mistakes people make is they hear the car alarm go off but take a quick glance out and immediately turn off. What your car alarm is saying every time it goes off is "Hey you! Someone who is not you just touched me - as in I think someone is trying to steal stuff" It's a pain in the butt for sure to go out every single time. However, I'd rather know I actually went out and saw for myself rather than find my stuff gone because I deactivated the alarm with a visual inspection.
  7. Make securing your car a part of your nightly security routine. I do it every single night. I check all of the doors and windows in my house. Once I'm done there, I arm mine and my wife's vehicle, ensuring the doors are locked. This has to be done. 
  8. Buy insurance for all of your stuff. Seriously. Buy insurance that covers loss of stuff from your vehicle. Remember, it's not a matter of if but when your stuff will get taken.
  9. If you're parked in a public garage, practice all of the steps above AND consider parking near cameras. Thieves often hit public garages and lots because they believe they'll have some privacy (i.e. areas to hide and do their business). You rob them of that privacy by placing the vehicle some place where natural observers can see them and where there are cameras. If the garage is manned, consider parking the car nearest where the attendants are at. Also, always take your parking passes, gate keys, and ticket stubs with you.
  10. If you're in a business that requires tools in your vehicles, be extra vigilant when taking the vehicle home with you. Seriously. Of all the vehicles that get attacked, work vehicles are targeted the most. Why? You're more likely to have expensive stuff.
If you're a law enforcement officer or security manager charged with preventing these crimes, I recommend the following site to assist in helping you. - http://www.popcenter.org/problems/parking_garage_theft/

Monday, July 22, 2013

Dude, You've Got Mad Pickpocket Skills

I have seen a lot of criminal acts in my 30-something years of being on this blue rock. Occasionally, I find myself amazed by how ingenious and brazen certain criminals are. This story out of China is one such case. A lady was innocently riding her bike when a pickpocket jogs next to her. As he gets closer to her, he uses chopsticks to retrieve her phone from jacket. That's right - chopsticks. You have to see it to believe it.






Yup. That's what you call a smooth operator.






Monday, July 15, 2013

OPINION: Why Crime Prevention Fails



I have a pet-peeve with the current spate of "anti-theft" apps for mobile devices. My problem doesn't lie with their technology. Nope, my issue is with their marketing. There are a plethora of these apps that are being called "crime prevention tools". I know what you're thinking, "But if someone takes my cell phone, this app will use the GPS to track my phone and send me an email so I can tell the police where to get my phone." True, but answer this question - What crime did it stop? Seriously, what crime did your app stop? And therein lies the problem with the app and with how we view crime prevention.

Part of the reason we have such a high rate of crime in this country resides mostly in our definition of "crime prevention". Many times, we mistakenly believe "prevention" relies on the response to the crime. A faster recovery means we've sent a message to the bad guys that they can't take our stuff without the cops coming to get them. Stop laughing. That's the message the creative marketing teams behind these apps and other products will have you believe. Remember Nancy Reagan's "just say no" campaign and the "war on drugs/crime". Those sent a clear message to the bad guys - we have no clue how to stop you.

Stopping crime is a noble objective but no crime is totally preventable. As a matter of fact, it's a safe bet that at some point in your life, you will be a victim of a crime. After 10 years of doing law enforcement in the military and my current job, I have an idea as to why this is. Simply put, the reason you will be a victim of crime at some point in your life rests in two places and neither of which needs the other for the crime to take place.

The first place where the crime onset takes place is with the criminal. Remember what I said a few posts ago about how the attacker will ultimately attack you regardless of what you do? The same idea applies here. You can't control what an attacker will do. If he/she is motivated and skilled enough, which are two things you can't always plan on, there is very little you can do beforehand to stop them. That's not a defeatist attitude. This is me directing you to the second place where the crime onset occurs - the victim.

Victims, typically, do a lot of things good before an attack occurs but they also do some things terribly wrong. Where things go wrong for them is in their attitude - "I never thought it would happen to me.....But I lock my doors....Why me?" There are loads of reasons you were selected to be a victim. None of which you may have had any control over. It is for this reason I think we need a new crime strategy - crime mitigation.

As we've discussed before, your attitude towards crime mitigation has to be proactive. You have to be thinking about the best way to lower your chances of being a victim and lessening the damage from an attack. Whether you purchase a smart phone or sports car, you should have a proactive attitude towards engaging the threat. Buying an alarm or an app won't stop theft but planning on it to happen at some point may not only mitigate the damage but provide more creative solutions to prevent the loss from happening in the first place.

Monday, July 1, 2013

10 Ways to Help Mitigate and Repel Home Invasions




In my real world job, I come across many crimes. None of them is more troubling than home invasions. According to the Department of Justices' Bureau of Justice Statistics:
  • An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.
  • A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries
  • Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
  • Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
Often, victims seem to picked at random or targeted by someone they know. However, in my experiences there a few things I think could mitigate the risks and the aftermath associated with home invasions.

  1. Prepare, prepare, prepare, prepare. Seriously, prepare. Most people assume because they lock their doors and have a gun that will stop someone from coming into their homes. Sometimes it and sometimes it doesn't. In order to mitigate this crime, potential victims have to prepare for the unthinkable and oftentimes, unlikely - someone will come and eventually break into your home while you're there. Just like every other disaster, homeowners and tenants should make preparations as if it could happen.
  2. NEVER EVER receive a visitor at a door you have never received someone at before. Many people who do home invasions often pick rear entrances to force their way inside. Think about it. Why don't you receive guests at your back door? Is it because it's dark, away from the drive, or is not in a place where you can see them approach? These are all of the reasons attackers love these entrances.
  3. NEVER EVER leave a door open that you're not close enough to shut when needed. I get it. The weather is blazing hot. Your entire house feels like an oven and all you want is a breeze. So you leave a door open. If an attacker is looking places to commit this crime, an open door is too appetizing to pass up. No matter how heroic or brave you think you are, you can never react in enough time if an attacker can open an unlocked door into your home.
  4. Consider a dog. I know. I know. Stop rolling your eyes. Seriously. Dogs can't fix everything and they are not a crime solution. However, if you live alone, a dog can be both an alarm and a defender. In a home invasion, you need all the help you can get. Imagine that it's 3am and you hear your backdoor being kicked in. So does your 100 pound German Shepherd. He goes to investigate or stays with you. Either way, there's a good chance whoever is in your home will know you have a dog (probably because he sank his teeth into the invaders flesh) or your neighbors could hear his bark.
  5. Consider buying new windows or new window locks. Older windows are ideal for home invasions, primarily because they are difficult to adequately secure. Over time, people paint over their locks which then become immobilized. Many people never bother to check if the windows lock. Checking your window locks is very important and should be a part of your daily routine.

    (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics)

  6. Buy or build a duress alarm. I know this sounds a bit extreme and complicated. I can assure you that neither is true. I recently, built a home duress alarm for my home in less than 15 minutes using speaker wire, a rocker switch, a piezo siren, and D cell battery pack. Once I flip the switch, the same siren you hear on a car alarm is heard throughout my home. I won't divulge where I keep it but suffice it to say I have it somewhere I plan to go the second I hear or see someone break into my home. You should consider doing the same. If you don't have the materials to make one, you should buy a window/door alarm sold at "dollar stores" found across the United States. Just keep one near where you plan to be during a home invasion and activate it once it occurs. The sound will distract and alert the bad guy that you know they are there and so will most of your neighbors. Some alarm companies can install a duress alarm in your home that will emit a siren and call the police. I prefer my method only because I know firsthand that phone service can go down and cellular backups aren't installed in every home security system. Plus my method cost me $20 when I made it myself and was $2 when purchased as a window/door alarm.

    Here's a duress alarm I built. This is without an enclosure which I'll add soon enough
  7. Have a phone at your bedside and wherever you are in your home. There's nothing worse than having someone break into your home, getting to your safe haven, and not having a phone to call the police. Have a phone near you at all times. In the military, it was a cardinal sin not to be within arm's length of your weapon at all times. I consider the same to be true of your phone. Also don't have a phone near you that won't work like a cell phone you know that doesn't get reception in your home. I also can reiterate the need to have a landline phone. Stop rolling your eyes. Seriously. If your cell phone doesn't work, you'll need to get help somehow. Trust me. You'll thank me later.
  8. Figure out your safe haven. Many people call this a "panic room". I hate that term. During an emergency situation, you can't afford to panic. You need to be ready to fight off the attacker in a deliberate fashion. Ideal places for safe havens are places you and your loved ones can get to when the attack occurs. I also find it useful to think of this place as an area where I will make my last stand. In other words, should the attacker breach the door into this area I will use any and all force available to repel him. Should you find yourself in a position where you have to defend an area while your family moves to a safe haven, have a "password". You may find yourself having to gain entry into their safe haven should you believe the attacker has left or you have repelled him. Your family should know to never open the "safe haven" door unless they receive the "password". Consider giving the dispatcher this "password" so she can tell first responders and you can know if they are friend or foe.
  9. Consider your armaments. Most people think a gun is the perfect solution. In some cases, it might very well be. This isn't a discussion about calibers or rifle vs handgun vs shotgun. This is about whether your weapons can and will repel an attacker. I can't tell you what to arm yourself with. There are some folks who are just as lethal with a carpenter's pencil as they are with a shotgun. What I will tell you is to ARM YOURSELF!! Trust me. Don't get caught without a weapon during an attack. You should have armaments stationed in places you can get to immediately during an attack. Whether it be a knife or a gun, have it ready and nearby. Also don't use something you haven't trained in using and retaining. An area most gun owners fail in doing is learning weapons retention skills. There are loads of classes and seminars on this topic. Do your research and learn about how to use and retain your armaments.
  10. Secure places you have left unsecured. Sun Tzu says, "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak." This is true in crime prevention. Your enemy will always hit you where you're not preparing for him at. That's why you check the first floor doors and windows, basement entrances to include windows, storm shelters, etc. Any place a human being could get into you should be checking daily for signs of weakness. 

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Terrorism and Intelligence Legislation You Should Know About But Don't



Now that this NSA story has spawned the insane amount of nonsensical and baseless conjecture on my Twitter feed, I thought I'd take a moment and educate everyone on intelligence and terrorism legislation they should already know about but don't for various reasons.

Terrorism:
  • Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
  • Executive Order 12947 signed by President Bill Clinton Jan. 23, 1995, Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, and later expanded to include freezing the assets of Osama bin Laden and others.
  • Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995
  • US Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (see also the LaGrand case which opposed in 1999-2001 Germany to the US in the International Court of Justice concerning a German citizen convicted of armed robbery and murder, and sentenced to death)
  • Executive Order 13224, signed by President George W. Bush Sept. 23, 2001, among other things, authorizes the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material or financial support or who are otherwise associated with terrorists. 66 Fed. Reg. 49,079 (Sept. 23, 2001).
  • 2001 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools for Intercepting and Obstructing Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act)(amended March 2006) (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was integrated to it) - I don't have enough energy to discuss the Patriot Act. All you need to know is that it gives the US government very broad powers in order to combat terrorism.
  • Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296.
  • Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act (SAFETY Act) of 2002
  • REAL ID Act of 2005 - Perhaps one of the most controversial pieces of legislation from the Bush era, it set forth certain requirements for state driver's licenses and ID cards to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes", as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It also outlines the following: 
    • Title II of the act establishes new federal standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards.
    • Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australian citizens.
    • Funding some reports and pilot projects related to border security.
    • Introducing rules covering "delivery bonds" (similar to bail bonds but for aliens who have been released pending hearings).
    • Updating and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity.
    • Waiving laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders
  • Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 - The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) prohibits any person from engaging in certain conduct "for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise." and extends to any act that either "damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property" or "places a person in reasonable fear" of injury. 
  • Military Commissions Act of 2006 - The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2008 but parts remain in order to use commissions to prosecute war crimes.
  • National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 - The second most controversial piece of legislation from the War on Terror authorizes "the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
    (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
  • Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-5 requires all federal and state agencies establish response protocols for critical domestic incidents in line with the National Incident Management System.

Intelligence

Thursday, May 23, 2013

INFOGRAPHIC: Pew Institute Poll - Sharing, Connections, & Privacy In The World Of Teen Social Media

This infographic from the Pew Institute provides some amazing insight into how teens view their social media privacy. As an investigator, I can share with you the value that social media has in gathering information on a person. Teens have historically been the most active users of social media and therefore their online "lives" traditionally have been insightful to say the least.

                      (click to enlarge)

Monday, May 13, 2013

POLICE WEEK: In Memory of All Those Who Wore The Badge

Remember our fallen....


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Cause: Gunfire


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Saturday, September 16, 2006
Cause: Automobile accident


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Monday, March 13, 2006
Cause: Automobile accident


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Friday, November 19, 1999
Cause: Struck by vehicle


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Saturday, May 8, 1999
Cause: Accidental


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Wednesday, October 14, 1998
Cause: Automobile accident


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Wednesday, October 14, 1998
Cause: Automobile accident


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Saturday, January 10, 1998
Cause: Gunfire


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Wednesday, January 1, 1992
Cause: Assault


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Wednesday, December 11, 1991
Cause: Electrocuted


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Monday, August 12, 1991
Cause: Training accident


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Saturday, November 15, 1980
Cause: Gunfire


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Sunday, March 18, 1979
Cause: Vehicular assault


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Sunday, March 26, 1978
Cause: Gunfire


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Friday, January 6, 1978
Cause: Stabbed


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Thursday, April 17, 1969
Cause: Gunfire


United States Air Force Security Forces
EOW: Wednesday, February 27, 1963
Cause: Aircraft accident




Tuesday, May 7, 2013

INTERVIEW: Geoff Howe of Howe and Howe Technologies Who Made The SWAT-BOT


I really like being a blogger. I get to explore all of my favorite topics and I get to be very passionate about security. That being said, it is a joy to find people who share my passion and make it evident in their work. The folks at Howe and Howe Technologies have found themselves in that very elite group. For the unfamiliar, I recently did an article about a remote piloted robot developed by the company. The other day, I decided to contact the Maine-based company for an interview to get some additional information. I knew right away upon speaking to Geoff Howe I'd called the right place.

Me: Can you tell me how the SWAT-Bot was developed?
Geoff: Two and a half years ago we started. Before that, in 2006, we were already developing unmanned ground vehicles for the US military. It was during the Fukishima reactor incident that we noticed something very troubling and quite frankly - frustrating. You see we had already developed a firefighting robot called Thermite. There was this incident and we had the technology in our facility to help. However, the infrastructure was not in place at the time. Shortly after that, we had a Department of Homeland Security Testing and Evaluation demonstration for FEMA at the Massachusetts Fire Academy.  The Massachusetts State Police STOP team was there and observed the Thermite and approached us about doing something for SWAT. We immediately began the dialogue and got great feedback from them. By 2012, we had a prototype developed. What was really frustrating was watching the West, Texas fire that killed all of those firemen and knowing we had technology here that could have taken them out of harms way.

Me: What are some of the robot's capabilities?
Geoff:  Well, it weighs 2300 lbs and can be transported in the bed of a pickup truck. Within 3 seconds, it can be operational. Within 15 seconds, the robot is ready to go with the ballistic shield mounted. It has several tools to include the DragonTail which shoots a projectile at a vehicle with a grappling hook and can drag cars. It also has a door breacher that can act as ram also, a tire deflator which was developed out of a request by Southern Maine Special Reaction Team, a negotiating basket, and HD video transmission. The HD video is done 1080p and is real-time. It was developed from technology used in sportscasting. There's also a light that has 16000 lumens.

Me: I'm really impressed by how cool the tech is behind this. Where does the person who pilots this operate from?
Geoff: The cool thing is he can be anywhere in the SWAT formation known as the stack. The best part is it can controlled by tether from a command vehicle with 300 foot tether.

Me: How long does it take to train operators? Maintenance?
Geoff: Maybe an hour. It's very easy to learn how to pilot. Maintenance can be done by the end-user and is very minor or we can send one of our field service reps out on an as needed basis.

Me: Geoff, this sounds like an amazing robot. I hope I make it to Maine to test this out. Any parting words?
Geoff: Thanks. We just want the product to be in the hands of people who need it the most. After Boston and all these other shootings, we can't help but see the demand and need for this. We're an R&D company so making things like this is what we do. I don't want to see another tragedy where we have the technology in our facility and not in the hands of first responders.

For more information:

http://www.howeandhowe.com/rs1-rbs1-robotic-ballistic-shield.html

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

VIDEO: SWAT-BOT: This Robot DESTROYS Barricades

I try not to get all mushy-gushy about law enforcement technology videos. Let's be honest - a great many are better known for their hype than their product delivery. Well I'm very encouraged by the SWAT-BOT. Howe and Howe Technologies created the product in coordination with the Massachusetts State Police and comes equipped with a collapsible ballistic shield, and a hardened AR400 steel nose shield to protect those in the line of fire. According to their site, "It serves as a robotic ballistic shield, door breacher and vehicle/debris remover when the environment is deemed unsafe." It has seen action in a variety of high profile SWAT deployments with MSP such as the Boston Marathon manhunt.





SPECIFICATIONS
  • Collapsible for easy transport
  • Remote controlled platform
  • Integrated 5000lb winch
  • Integrated Class III receiver
  • Integrated ballistic vision blocks
  • Additional Options Available:
  • Integrated storage cage
  • Door entry ram
  • HD Video Optics
  • Designed to traverse the most rugged of terrain
  • Durability to withstand challenges other robots this size would not be able to endure
  • Constructed of A440f steel, aircraft grade aluminum , and high quality components
  • Start up of full robotic functions in 5 seconds, significantly lowering response times
  • 100% handcrafted in the USA and draws upon years of robotic research
  • Dimensions Stowed: 72” L x 41” W x 47” H
  • Dimensions Expanded: 72” L x 97” W x 80” H
  • Weight: 2290 lbs
  • Draw bar pull: 1270lbs on asphalt, 1040lbs on concrete
  • 25hp Diesel Engine
For more information:

Saturday, March 16, 2013

VIDEO: Security Threats by the Numbers - Cisco 2013 Annual Security Report


The kind folks at Cisco published their Annual Security Report. What I like about what they did is they chose to publish in a video infographic format. As you can tell, I'm a HUGE fan of infographics. However, if you're a stickler for PDF reports, I'll have a link below the video of the entire report.

Some interesting facts:
  • Global cloud traffic will increase sixfold over the next five years, growing at a rate of 44 percent from 2011 to 2016.
  • Only one in five respondents say their employers do track their online activities on company-owned devices, while 46 percent say their employers do not track activity.
  • 90 percent of IT professionals surveyed say they do indeed have policies that prohibit company-issued devices being used for personal online activity—although 38 percent acknowledge that employees break policy and use devices for personal activities in addition to doing work.
  • Cisco’s research shows significant change in the global landscape for web malware encounters by country in 2012. China, which was second on the list in 2011 for web malware encounters, fell dramatically to sixth position in 2012. Denmark and Sweden now hold the third and fourth spots, respectively. The United States retains the top ranking in 2012, as it did in 2011, with 33 percent of all web malware encounters occurring via websites hosted in the United States.
To read more of the report, click here.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

GUEST AUTHOR - DEVIN RUIC: Disarming the Gun Control Debate


Today's article is a guest blog post from Devin Ruic, a Department of the Army civilian, having previously worked with the Defense Intelligence Agency as an intelligence analyst. Originally from Cleveland, Ohio he decided to take his talents to Washington, DC in 2010 before shifting slightly more north to Baltimore, Maryland in 2012. Devin has years of recreational shooting experience with various firearms, and is expert qualified with the Army’s M11 semi automatic pistol.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people tokeep and bear arms shall not be infringed.~The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as passed by the States.
The topic of gun regulation is fraught with emotional responses. Advocates for new, restrictive gun legislation refer to exceptional tragedies, like the Newtown Massacre, as an attempt to personalize the loss of victims to the entire country. Gun enthusiasts refer to the Second Amendment, studies lambasting previous gun bans, and anecdotal evidence surrounding the use of specific firearms, like the AR-15, as a personal defense tool. Unlike many commentators, I see value in both of these positions. First, let us discuss regulation and where it came from, starting with this: for decades fully automatic firearms (or "machine guns") have been illegal to purchase or manufacture for civilian use, but how?
Ready...
Well, sawed-off shotguns have been considered illegal since at least 1939, when the Supreme Court decided in The United States v. Miller that there was no reasonable expectation of Second Amendment protections regarding a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" because it did not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The Supreme Court went further, discussing the origins of the "militia" as mentioned in the Second Amendment, and determined "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.’A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." This decision provides what could be reasonable regulatory guidance moving forward, then.
Firearms need to have this reasonable relationship to the efficacy of a militia, and that militia is traditionally composed of physically capable males (and women, in modern times) who supplied their commonly used firearms to the cause (a violent, historical "Bring Your Own Beer"). In the 1930s, sawed off shotguns were determined to be neither useful nor in the common use,and therefore those could be easily outlawed (targeting primarily criminal elements, where the ownership and use of said firearm was most common).
Following this crucial decision, and fast forwarding a couple of decades, we arrive at the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Whether or not you are a connoisseur of federal law, some of its provisions should sound extraordinarily familiar. This act banned the sale or transfer of a firearm to a number of "prohibited persons" including convicts, fugitives, known addicts, the mentally-ill, non-citizens, and other even more-likely-to-be-violent types. If you are feeling a sense of Déjà Vu, that is because almost all of the recent debate has referenced this decades old prohibited persons list, and how in the world we as a society actively prohibit these people from acquiring firearms.
Some of the provisions of this act still sparked controversy, particularly down the line when it was alleged that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) had overstepped its bounds as described by the law, and unconstitutionally restricted some retailers and Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. In 1982, a Senate panel convened in response to these allegations determined that the Second Amendment protects "an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
In order to fix the legislative problems with the Gun Control Act of 1968 as originally determined by the 1982 Senate panel, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed. This eased many of the restrictions that were considered controversial in the original act (interstate travel with a firearm, the ban on mailing ammunition, interstate purchases of rifles, etc), but also included an amendment at the 11th hour to ban fully automatic machine guns. Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, introduced by New Jersey Democrat William Hughes, banned the new production and sales of machine guns starting May 19, 1986, but grandfathered in any firearms produced or owned prior to that date. Aha! I knew those pesky machine guns would come back up - but there you go, a precedent for banning a whole class of firearm.
Aim...
Democratic Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, the driving force behind the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, is attempting to reinstate a more strict version of the ban following the Newtown Massacre, as well as a slew of commonly referenced "mass shootings".
Both the 1994 ban and this proposed 2013 ban primarily target semi automatic rifles, dubbed "assault weapons", such as the AR-15, many Saiga (Russian, basically Kalashnikov brand) shotguns, a number of semi automatic pistols, and so-called high capacity magazines. Most recently, any ammunition loading device capable of holding more than ten rounds has fallen within the reticle (Woo, topical humor!) of this "high capacity" moniker.
Considering I have just introduced a 'common use' (yes, I know, I'll stop now) phrase important to this discussion, I will discuss its origin. "Assault weapon" certainly sounds like a firearm just about no one needs. Heck, it sounds a lot like "machine gun". Unfortunately for those not familiar with firearms, that isn't what the term means. For the purposes of the legislation, the term "assault" rifle refers to a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, forward grip, an adjustable stock, a grenade/rocket launcher (Holy... what is that doing in there?!), a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel. So, any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine (many, if not most, modern rifles) and any one of those other characteristics is banned. None of those characteristics (except for the grenade launcher, because how in the world is that legal, anyway?) make the firearm more dangerous or lethal, they simply help stabilize the firearm and make it more comfortable to shoot - an important characteristic for anyone hunting or shooting for recreation or defense. For those keeping score at home, I did not forget that a threaded barrel can allow for the use of a suppressor, but remember that anyone wishing to purchase a one has to apply through the ATF, undergo a background check, pay $200, deal with subsonic ammunition, and receive a revenue stamp - the document proving that the suppressor is legally owned.
Regardless, these weapons must be significantly more dangerous than your day to day target rifle, right?
Not necessarily.
Well, they must represent a high proportion of gun violence, right?
Also a no. The oft-referenced Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report (UCR) highlights this. In 2011, 13,913 murders (or non-negligent manslaughters) were committed. Of these, 323 were committed with any kind of rifle (whether it be fully automatic, semi automatic, bolt action, or lever action). That represents only 2.3% of these crimes. Another 356 were committed with a shotgun, again without distinction between pump action and semiautomatic. By comparison, 6,220 were committed with handguns alone. This accounts for a much more impressive 44% of these crimes.
So why in the world go after "assault rifles" and not pistols as a whole?
A look at the conclusion of a 1988 study conducted by the Violence Policy Center entitled "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" may give us a pretty good idea (emphasis added): "Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the factthat until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restrictionis simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
It boils down to the confusing nature of the terminology and whether or not a firearm looks scary, and whether the general public will care enough until it becomes a large scale tragedy, rather than the all too common shooting in an urban environment. In my opinion, every shooting should be addressed by future laws, not just famous ones.
So why high capacity magazines? Many commentators claim that the time it takes for an active shooter to change magazines can provide a crucial opportunity for victims to escape. This is a reasonable claim, and I do not dispute the anecdotal evidence supporting it. Shooters have been tackled and subdued, and victims have escaped during these precious few moments. Not always, however, is this the case.
Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, did not have access to high capacity magazines, but instead came into possession of thirteen 10-round magazines. He was able to fire 96 rounds from his Hi-Point 995, a carbine rifle firing pistol ammunition, before he killed himself. 13 victims died.
Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech, murdered 32 people, using a Walther P22 (which has a 10-round magazine of .22 long rifle bullets) and a Glock 17 (which can house 10, 15, 17, 19, or 33-round magazines of 9x19mm ammunition). Cho fired at least 174 rounds in a matter of minutes, and police found an additional 203 live rounds in his possession after the fact. Having chained the doors shut behind him, Cho prohibited his victims from escaping, and was able to reload with near impunity, regardless of his magazine capacity and choice of pistols, rather than an “assault rifle.”
None of this changes the fact that far too many innocents have died at the hands of madmen who, through either a failure of the system or a previous criminal act came into possession of firearms and then used them in the commission of horrendous crimes. In order to combat these crimes, something does need to be done - and members of both parties accept that basic fact. The difference lies in what should be done, and how the current crop of politicians is moving forward.
Fire!
The first logical step in combating illegal firearms is universal background checks. This is a truth that National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre needs to accept - even without prosecutions for every failed background check, limiting the means of dangerous criminals from purchasing firearms is not a bad thing. Plus, when you peddle the idea as the face of the gun lobby in 1999, 2013 is a really bad time to attempt and backtrack. However, there are obvious weaknesses in the current federal background check system. If it were a foolproof system Gerald Hume - a schizophrenic with a violent past - would not have been able to purchase a number of firearms and ammunition from FFLs and proceed to engage in an 11 hour standoff with police while Hume protected the chopped up remains of his own mother from discovery.
Let me be absolutely clear - I am suggesting a vast increase in the sharing of information between the States and the Federal database system, to include information that would label potential gun buyers as violently mentally-ill. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) permits the waiving of privacy in the case of national security activities, whether these relate to intelligence collection or counterintelligence. A new version of this act could allow for a redacted version of the information regarding an individual’s adjudicated mental status to be listed within a federal database without unnecessarily infringing upon a patient's’ privacy, in the same way as federal investigations already sidestep the restrictions HIPAA imposes. There is already a precedent for medical data being used to prohibit gun ownership - the prohibition on gun purchases by patients prescribed marijuana, despite the legality of medical marijuana state-by-state. Regardless of the justification for the prescription, the ATF draws the line at the use of a federally-illegal narcotic in conjunction with firearm ownership. If marijuana users are more of a concern than the adjudicated mentally-ill who are determined to be violent, we are living in an upside down world.
Second, banning a semiautomatic rifle with but one military characteristic is illogical. Origins within military design are ubiquitous in firearms - a Soviet-issued infantry rifle is among the most popular hunting rifles in the US and the Colt 1911MA1 pistol, designed for the US military, is still possibly the most popular handgun in America, neither being more dangerous than the average target or hunting firearm. Additionally, a rifle with a ten round magazine chambered with a .22 round may be less lethal than a semi automatic pistol chambered with a .45 round, depending on the intent and capability of the shooter – but this is not a consideration worked into current legislation that would ban even .22 caliber rifles shaped like their higher caliber “assault weapon” brethren. Regardless, an attempt to limit the potential danger associated with either of these weapons in a the hands of a violent shooter is a natural response to mass shootings utilizing “assault rifles” specifically (though we should not provide a pardon to the use of illegally owned handguns in the same manner). To this end, regulation of high capacity magazines moving forward is a middle ground that can accomplish both gun legislation parties’ goals.
For pro gun regulation advocates, the institution of a policy similar to that of the regulation governing suppressors can effectively control the public’s, and potentially criminals’, access to seemingly unnecessary high-capacity magazines. This could, anecdotally speaking, provide for more opportunities for victims to escape active shooter situations while the perpetrator changes magazines.
Despite the institution of such a regulation, those citizens and firearm aficionados that want high capacity magazines for any number of reasons could still apply to the ATF in order to purchase either the magazines or the components to maintain currently owned and grandfathered-in magazines, thereby not banning wholesale the ownership or manufacture of these devices, while still encouraging the manufacturing and sale market of lower capacity magazines for hunting, recreational, and self defense purposes. Using the logic that criminals are unlikely to pass the necessary application process and background check for the hypothetical regulation, the supply of high capacity magazines and their component parts to these criminal elements would dry up over a number of years, while law abiding citizens continue to enjoy their freedoms, as well as allowing firearms to be effectively customized to its legal shooter - male, female, competitor, hunter, or otherwise.
Reload!
Gun legislation is controversial, from whatever perspective you look at it. From the extremes, either the Democrat-controlled Senate and Executive Branch are looking to create a database to exploit in the future (it isn't), or Republican gun owners are looking to take up arms against the democratically elected government (they aren't). This is not a debate where we can use ad hominem attacks, like those in the previous sentence, nor should we. Instead, we should look to solutions that allow for the continued exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights, while still moving toward a system that will prohibit the mentally-ill or criminally-minded from acquiring theweapons they use to commit murder.
The firearm regulation debate should not be a push from one side of the political spectrum, but rather a push from every gun owner, parent, hunter, teacher, target shooter, and doctor alike. We can attempt and ban objects used to kill - but cars, knives, garbage bags, and even our own hands would be on that list. We need to deal with the people that commit these acts and their possession of the weapons enabling them. We also need to realize that no action we will take will create the utopia of peace we want to leave for our children - but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't act, it means we should act intelligently and hope they will be left with better circumstances than and a more peaceful world than we were, while still retaining their Constitutional rights.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are exclusively those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

INTERVIEW: Guardly Offers Insight Into Indoor Positioning System and The Future Of Emergency Dispatch



I'm just going to put it out there. I love Guardly. After writing my last piece on the public safety mobile app, I decided to subscribe to the service. And to be honest, I'm blown away by it's user-friendly GUI, the depth of its coverage, how robust its emergency protocols are, and the overall potential it has for much greater deployment. So last week, when I saw that they developed a new feature for some of their college campus clients, I became quite curious and called Guardly to find out. Here's my interview with Guardly CEO, Joshua Sookman.

Josh, it's great to speak with you again. I love the product and I'm calling to find out about your latest development.

Scriven, it's great to hear from you. Well, we've been developing a new feature called Indoor Positioning System which will relay to emergency contacts and dispatchers where you are in much greater detail. By greater detail, I'm referring to your location inside a building.

Wow. Is that like GPS? If so, that sounds like an incredible development. 

Not quite. So here's how it works. We begin using the features that already exist in your phone to analyze certain data like WiFi connections and various radio frequencies to narrow down where you are.

How does that look to the dispatcher?

It works just like the original display but with added metadata. It can tell the dispatcher if you're in a specific room or the elevator shaft or a stairwell.  We use those radio frequencies and WiFi hotspots to do this. Each location in a building will have a different frequency signature. So that data can point to a specific location in the building. Basically, we want to take what used to be a 2D world and used augmented metadata to depict a 3D environment for the dispatcher. We believe doing this will decrease response times in getting help to you, as so much time is used in the initial moments of an emergency dispatch call to get this information out of the caller. Having that information available immediately, should reduce the time from call to dispatch.



Where is this available and on what platforms?

It's available only to select customers and is available on the Android OS.



So I've made no secret that I love Guardly and I see it as part of a greater movement in emergency management to decrease response times and provide better and more timely information to emergency responders. What are your feelings about such initiatives as Text to 911?

Great question. Honestly, I think it's a great step in the right direction. With it and services like guardly we should lesser response times. Again, the more information you get, no matter how you get it, is absolutely the key. An area of concern for us and those of us in emergency management is the potential for emotional stress and possible PTSD-related issues given the level of information dispatchers could be exposed to. As we expand what is capable from using all of the features mobile phones come with such as video and audio, there is a potential for having too much information exposure for those who may not be accustomed it.  We also believe services like Guardly are an evolution of technologies that have made things more "hyper-local" and personal. We believe, as these technologies grow and evolve, so will services like Guardly and the quality of information available to first responders.

Josh, as always, it has been great talking to you. I look forward to seeing more of what Guardly has in store for the public safety sector.

For more information on Guardly's Indoor Positioning System, see the link below:

https://www.guardly.com/solutions/technology/indoor-positioning-system

To read my review on Guardly, click on the link below.

http://blog.thesecuritydialogue.org/2012/12/review-guardly-will-change-what-you.html

To download Guardly, click here.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Five Things You Should Know About Christoper Dorner: Myth Busted


Folks, on Twitter, I have made no qualms about my feelings about Christopher Dorner. He is a murderer plain and simple. I won't be using this as a post to defend him or his actions. This post is mostly to talk about his mortality and the myths that surround him.

  1. Dorner was not an operator.  First, let's define "operator". An operator is anyone who is engaged in direct action covert operations. They come from the special operations and intelligence community.  They receive extensive training in things ranging from combat SCUBA to defensive driving, ordnance, small infantry tactics, covert infiltration, and high-altitude low opening (HALO). This training takes YEARS. And it takes even longer before some are considered operational. Many don't even get to go to schools right away before they go operational. Here's what we know about Dorner. He was an aviation school washout. What does that mean? The Navy tried for two years to make Dorner a pilot but couldn't for undisclosed reasons. These reasons could have been weight (he gained weight dramatically over the years), physical disability, ineptitude, or variety of dis-qualifiers  This compounds the myth further because the Navy spent a lot of money trying to train Dorner to be a pilot. So what happened next? They sent him to be a part of a riverine unit. This sounds pretty cool. Here's the problem. Dorner only stayed with that unit for 2 years before he was forced to move on. You will notice a pattern when examining his record. He has a history of bouncing from military unit to military unit.  Most likely, when you see such movements and not rapid promotions or earned recognition, it is indicative of someone who couldn't quite fit in. By the time he finished his deployment in Bahrain where he guarded an oil platform (a job Army cooks were doing for a while), his career in the Navy was nearing its end.  Dorner lacked any of the operational or training requirements to meet any criteria associated with being an operator.
  2. Dorner was a narcisssist. He used scary terms like "asymmetrical warfare" to bolster who he wanted people to think he was. In his manifesto, he was no longer Christopher Dorner, Navy and LAPD washout. No. He became a mythical persona. He was someone out of a Hollywood revenge movie. He became something he couldn't be in real life - special and unique. He believed LAPD had robbed him of that. Count how many times Dorner used the pronoun "I". It's quite extensive. Also notice how he never went to DoJ or any other entity. The slight wasn't against his victims. LAPD had done something far worse. They picked on Christopher Dorner.
  3. He was mortal. There are several signs we have of Dorner's mortality. Let's look at his failed escape attempts. An experienced operator plans his missions with meticulous detail. They don't miss anything. The one thing they never mess up is their extraction. Dorner messed up all of his extraction plans. After he robbed the old man at the marina of his boat, he forgets to secure the tow line. It, as we know, got caught in the propeller and the boat never left its dock. This is seamanship 101. How does a harbor cop like Dorner miss this? Because he's not a pro. He hadn't planned on everything to include his adrenaline overcoming his thinking. It happens to a lot of people in combat. This is why operators are heavily screened to judge how they operate under stressful conditions. Dorner's extraction from Big Bear failed as well. I'm not talking about the fire. I'm speaking of before that. Let's look at what went wrong there. He believes he can drive off-road skillfully which is evidenced in his manifesto. Again, he did not forecast poor weather conditions nor the amount of stress he would be under. So what does he do? He wrecks his transportation, breaks the axle, and is forced to set the truck on fire.

    He also didn't realize the Marshals were on to this extraction. They had marshals and Recon Marines conducting surveillance on his hideaway spot when they saw the fire. Sensing the impending arrival of law enforcement agencies and knowing the roads would soon be blocked, he tried to hold a couple hostage. This planned failed because they got away and told police who made contact and engaged Dorner. He was killed not by police but by the realization that for all his talk, he was just a washout.
  4. Dorner may have had access to information he shouldn't have had but that doesn't mean he had any of the tools or knowledge he claimed. I won't get into how or why or even if Dorner had access to undercover vehicle plates. Here's what I will tell you. Having those plates and recognizing them under stress in real time are totally different. Remember Dorner would have to be trained and skilled in vehicle counter-surveillance. This takes months of training to perfect. This training we know Dorner did not get in the Navy or with LAPD. His Navy time was spent with aviation training units and doing coastal security. I have experience in military law enforcement and security more extensive than Dorner while active duty and I was also in charge of requisitioning training for assets in my unit. No such training exists for anyone in any of Dorner's previous billets. Also, Dorner wouldn't have time to run down every suspicious vehicle following him.

    He also used terminology very familiar to military and law enforcement personnel and most people who have read a Vince Flynn novel. He claimed he had HUMINT (human intelligence or spies) when in fact, he was alluding to social engineering (calling schools and hospitals to obtain information he needed). He claimed he had IMINT (imagery intelligence). There is no way he had access to any discernible IMINT technologies. These require a very involved intelligence tasking and have considerable oversight. Additionally, satellites cost money. What he had was Google Earth and possibly some aerial photos that would be very dated. Having this information and using it are also completely different. He could plan escape routes but no way he could plan target mitigation with dated or unreliable data flawlessly. His signals intelligence came from scanners.

    He also had knowledge someone would expect of an LAPD officer so he knew basic tactics and procedures. What he could not have known  is that people he was matching wits with (those analysts he called out) are all experienced intelligence analysts and officers from various operational theaters. Studying threats is what they do for a living. When you get a second, look into where the people who work at fusion centers, JTTF, and VICAP come from. Talking and planning for them is kind of easy. Where it gets tough is whether your plan is superior to anything they've encountered previously. 
  5. Dorner also gave away a lot of information about himself in that manifesto. When you talk to the cops, you always give them more information than you should. Dorner gave them insight into his personality, his intellect, his methodologies, and what tools he could have. I've already talked about his personality and that his intellect was somewhat congruent with someone who is a college graduate. His methodologies and tools were expected. We knew he'd shoot it out with the cops because he said so and did it. His tools were also greatly exaggerated. There is no way he had access to MANPADS. He doesn't have the income or the resources needed to get something al Qaeda couldn't get into the US. Dorner gave an 11-page blueprint that spelled out his demise.
Whatever you think of Dorner, know this - he was very mortal. He made mistakes that no experienced person would have made. He lacked the background and tools to pull off what he claimed he could. Dorner was military-trained but flunked out of every single advanced training he was given. We panicked that he would find a plane but records indicated he had no pilot's license. He couldn't even get a boat out of port. He wrecked a truck and broke its axle because he didn't check the weather for ice and snow. He burned all of his weapons and camping gear which he would need to survive the massive manhunt on Big Bear. Allowing his hostages to escape caused the local cops to be on his trail and corner him in a cabin where he would burned before presumably shooting himself. I say all of this to debunk the myth surrounding this murderer and bring some illumination on the nature of the killer of four people.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Visualizing Mass Shootings in America (1982 - 2012)

Visualizing mass shootings in USA
Click on the map to enlarge

Here's what I like about this infographic. It not only let's you see data by location but also by mental illness, weapons legally acquired, venue, weapon type, race, gender, and year. Be sure to click on the map to enlarge it so you can see the graph.

Take a look at the actual data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AtIWtgxch7DtdERIVnowSkx4NGRjN3E4UjdWMHNRY3c&output=html

Friday, February 1, 2013

FUNDRAISER: Officer Down Memorial Page



You may notice a new widget at the bottom right. As a former military police officer for over a decade, I have long wanted to give back to those who serve us. So, I thought the best way for me to do that would be to use our large readership base and make a contribution to a site that honors fallen law enforcement heroes, the Officer Down Memorial Page. You can donate as little as $1. All I ask is that you give a little something back to those who serve us. Your donations will go directly to the charity. You can get more information regarding ODMP at http://www.odmp.org.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Six Ways Burglars Get Away With Your Stuff




Recently, I was asked to compile a list of way burglars break into homes. The idea behind this list is twofold:
  • Demonstrate common burglar/intruder methodology 
  • Show the futility in modern home security risk analysis 

Here's what I wrote:

Burglars act as most attackers do. What does that mean? They approach your home the same way any operational threat (bad guy) would whether they are hackers or home invaders. The first thing they do is reconnaissance. This could be as simple as a drive-by or a pretext to get inside of the residence. Some burglars use social media to get an idea as to when you'll be away and/or get an idea as to what kind of loot you have. Not all do. Most common thieves attack venues they know are not secure. Many times it's an inside job (disgruntled employees, relatives, friends of the family, etc.).

This man robbed an East Village Apartment he had been showing
for a real estate company he  was working  for at the time
      
What are they looking for? It depends on their expertise. Most amateurs will stay away from places with an alarm system, if they don't know the code. Professionals are savvy enough to either bypass the alarm or know the code. Stickers and signs can be counter-productive. They advertise to a bad guy you have something worth protecting. They also look for natural observers (nosy neighbors, kids playing at all hours, your activity, your interaction with your neighbors, mailmen, police who regularly patrol the area, and street traffic). They look for flimsy window locks and screen doors. They look for what's accessible from their point of entry. They look for cameras (sometimes - depends on expertise). They look for mail delivery. They also look for large product boxes. These advertise "we just bought a lot of expensive stuff" to prospective thieves. They look for moving boxes. This signals you just moved in and probably won't have an alarm set just yet. They look for proximity to neighbors and relative noise.

They won't all approach your home like this guy.....




Once they have all their particulars in order, they prepare a kit. Some guys already have one for every job. It'll consist of a crowbar or other heavy wedge. They'll have screwdrivers and hammers. They may have lockpicks. They'll have large bags and will likely use a van or other large vehicle. A pro may use a minivan. No one ever suspects a minivan.  

Burglary tools found on an alleged burglar.
You'll notice there are several lockpicks and door wedges.

After they have their kit and transportation, they may decide on a crew. Some guys have one and some don't. They also fit the profile.

Next begins the approach. They'll check doors and see if the door is loose. If there is sufficient spacing, the door has movement. What does that mean? Remember that crowbar? Some guys will also have a master key. When homes are often constructed, the construction company buys standard locks for every house they build in a development. Many times those homes have a key or specialize tool they use to set the lock. This key/tool is like a master key and can open most locks in that development. It's the reason many lock companies have steered away from this. Homeowners should immediately change the locks in any new development. They may also kick the door in. If they do this, the job is really rushed and time is of the essence more so than if they go in quietly. They may look for windows if the doors are not able to be breached. They stick to first floors. Second floor windows can be tricky. You don't have the benefit of leverage and your visibility to those natural observers is greater. If the windows fail, they go for sliding doors. In places like Florida, this is easy. Most people don't engage the slide lock and rely on a bar to keep the door from being pried. If they have time, they can try to wedge the door off the slides. There's also breaking the glass. That's why they look for items that within reach if that becomes an issue.

Sliding doors are a popular point of entry for most burglars
Once inside, the job is easy. They go for ANYTHING. Inside jobs always hit the things you hide or are personal to you. Though nothing is safe. If its in a safe, great. However, if the safe can be easily picked up, they'll just take the safe. They'll look for guns. Guns are an easy $200 in a gun buyback program. They'll also grab the usual stuff - TV's, games, jewelry, etc. Any identity stuff is also HUGE. They'll move this stuff into the vehicle. From there, they'll depart the scene and try to sell your goods.

About Us