The Top 7 Questions You Should Be Considering When Improving Home Security

The show above is a clear demonstration as to how security professionals should approach home security planning and risk analysis.

Many times I'm asked by various people how to properly secure their home. Initially, it can be very difficult sometimes to give advice as to how to provide adequate security for your residence. I feel in order for your home to be secure you must first realistically assess your risk tolerance, the nature of the threat and your vulnerabilities, and what you're willing to do to mitigate the threat. I do this by asking several questions:

1. What's security mean to you? Most people look bedazzled when I ask this. I firmly believe security is a mindset and not a result. If you live in a really nice neighborhood with no crime, you might feel secure with your door unlocked. However, in a bad neighborhood, that may not be ideal. So what makes you secure?
2. What can't you lose? Some people naturally reply "nothing". I have had some be very specific. This is an important question to ask because most people may not need to spend hundreds of dollars on elaborate security if the only thing they're afraid of losing is fairly replaceable if lost. That also depends on personal perspective. Losing my father's watch would be a terrible loss for me but not someone else. In sales, they call these first two questions "What's your pain?"
3. What's your terrain like? In other words, what's the nature of the environment you're securing? Is this a high crime area? Do people routinely talk to their neighbors? Are you visible during the day? Is your neighborhood well-patrolled by police? If not, why? Most people don't have a good answer for this last question, though, it may be the most important one. Does your property allow visitors inside without credentialing them? This question is especially important for those who live in housing developments with rental units. Are there ways your neighbors and others can naturally see your home unobstructed? You should see some recurring themes from previous articles.
4. What's the threat? In other words, who wants your stuff? How do they know your stuff or could know it? The threat identity question is the most important question you can ask yourself and anyone who asks for your advice. Figure out who is likely to attack the home and for what reasons (home invasions, stalker, burglars, etc.). You may have to get an accounting of the client or yourself (if it's your home). That means asking about prior domestic violence, violent crime in the area or the home, any overt threats made, attacks on homes nearby, shady people seen in the neighborhood. From there, use the third question about terrain to determine likelihood of an attack.
5. Just how vulnerable are you? Many people have two ways of assessing vulnerabilities and neither of them work - being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic. Homeowners think the way normal, law-abiding citizens do when they think of burglars. They assume burglars look for the same things they do. Often, they get these faulty ideas from television or vivid imaginations. Just because you might be able to climb a ledge and walk to your window two stories up with perfect agility doesn't mean a drug-addicted burglar will even care. So how does someone think like a criminal and find vulnerabilities? First, be realistic. Next, check for yourself. Crooks have experience so they already know what does and does not work. I'm not telling you to break a window but there's no harm trying to drive a wedge in a door or walking on the other side of your fence to see what a burglar would see. Walk around your neighborhood and ask yourself what house looks the easiest to hit. Then ask yourself why. Ask yourself what would the burglar do with your stuff. Will he pawn it? If so, then an inventory of all of your high risk items is necessary with serial numbers.
6. Next, what can you do to protect yourself? Most people's natural security reflex is to buy a safe and then an alarm. Good? Nope. Actually both are terrible in some cases though not all. I like safes and alarms. However, what good are both if you don't understand why they were made? An alarm cannot stop all burglars. Many bad guys will already plan for this and hit your house any way. Alarms are great for getting the cops there as soon as possible. Picking a reputable company to install and monitor it is absolutely key. Safes are designed to slow thieves down. No safe is impenetrable. Every safe has a weakness. Most consumer safes have the same vulnerability - you can transport them. You can pick them up and take them somewhere to be cracked later. So what should a homeowner with one do? Bolt it to the floor and buy a safe that doesn't have electrical locks. Trust me. Don't buy a big threatening dog either. Some dogs work but some don't. Don't gamble your property or your life hoping a canine will stop an attack. Guns are great against home invasions and other intruders. However, don't advertise them. Remember what I said about gun buy-back programs.
7. Finally, what are you willing to sacrifice to feel secure? The number one complaint about security always revolves around convenience. I don't care what you're protecting. Someone will complain about the inconvenience on their time, energy and money to have it. The toughest part of consulting anyone on home and personal protection is this part. People can't wrap their heads around giving up something to protect against a threat they may never see. Remind them (and yourself) threats don't engage us on our calendars. They may not come now or anytime soon. However, it is better to be prepared and be able to live your life securely and worry-free than to not prepare and lose things you hold most dear.

These questions are tough but necessary before you can advise anyone on how to properly secure their homes. I recommend giving them (and yourself) a few days to think about the first two questions as these will surely be the hardest. As you're asking these questions, don't be afraid to ask if you missed something. Finally and most importantly, give the client a chance to contribute - it's their security after all. If it's your house, get your entire household involved. The more stake everyone has in this process the easier it is to have a comprehensive security plan.

Do you have any suggestions on what other questions homeowners should be asking? Feel free to leave a comment or a question below.

OPINION: Why Benghazi Keeps Me Up At Night

I got to thinking again about Benghazi.  Actually, that damn city has been on my mind for months.  I digress.  I kept thinking tonight about why the intelligence community (IC) would redact its knowledge of the attackers being terrorists.  It's a common question among many "Benghazi-gate" - as I like to call them - "DIY investigators".

Here's my take:

• The IC allegedly received an intelligence report via email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility via Facebook.  We now know that post was either removed, never existed, or was posted by someone only familiar with the group, according to various "senior Administration sources" used by the media.  Why post something and then remove it?  Logic would dictate if you were bad enough to do the deed and then brag about it, why take it down.
• If in fact the Facebook post were from the group, it's quite simple why they would remove it.  Terrorists aren't all that dumb and are certainly tech savvy enough to understand how IP addresses work.  If true, it is my supposition they realized that within minutes the IC would be running traces on the IP associated with that post and would be ramming a Hellfire missile down the author's throat not too soon afterwards.
• I know what you're thinking - But that doesn't explain why the Director of National Intelligence would remove it from Ambassador Rice's statement.  Au contraire!  It does.  My guess is the IC was close to running that trace but hadn't acted on it for various reasons - one of which I'll explain in a bit.  In these types of dynamic situations, it can be difficult to ascertain fact from fiction.  When coordinating retribution attacks, you need to be accurate.  Supposing the Facebook post did exist, the IC presumably asked that Ambassador Rice not blow their cover by disclosing in fact that they knew who the bad guys were.  I see you over there making that face.  
• Before this alleged posting by Ansar al-Sharia, we had no concrete evidence they were the culprit.  Had Ambassador Rice said this was terrorism too prematurely, we may have lost the tactical advantage of surprise and could have made things extremely problematic for our Libyan allies and our special operations units who undoubtedly would have/could have/should have been tasked with hunting down the culprits.  To give the situation some additional much-need perspective, it would do us all well to remember there wasn't a single capture from this attack.  With the absence of a significant amount of actionable chatter, the US government would have been flying blindly with a reprisal attack.
• Oh. Did I forget to mention how unreliable the source that email cited was?  Yeah. About that.  CNN contacted a guy, Aaron Azelin who monitors jihadist sites for a living.  You'll love what he said.

"However, an examination of the known Facebook and Twitter accounts of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi reveals no such claim of responsibility. Aaron Zelin, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tracks dozens of jihadist websites and archives much of what they say. He told CNN he was unaware of any such claim having been posted on the official Facebook page or Twitter feed of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi.
Zelin, who said his RSS feed sends him any new statement from the group, provided CNN with a copy of that feed. It shows no Facebook update between September 8 and September 12, when a posting late that afternoon first referenced the attack. Zelin notes that the posting referred to a news conference the group had held earlier that day in Benghazi in which it denied any role in the assault on the consulate, while sympathizing with the attackers.

Accompanying a posting of the news conference on YouTube, a commentary says that the attack on the consulate was "a wave of rage for Allah and his Prophet, it came from the Muslim youths."

The posting continues: "Ansar al-Sharia brigade did not officially participate as a military body, nor received any orders directed from the brigade."

The group's Twitter feed tells the same story. The account, @anssarelshariea, bears the group's logo and a tweet on September 8 - and then nothing until four days later. And at no point is there a claim of involvement in or responsibility for the attack on the U.S. Consulate compound."

All of this makes me wonder, "How is that we had a CIA station in Benghazi but the only intelligence we had to verify this group was responsible came from a single Facebook post?"  I know getting a hold of sources during a crisis can be difficult and the intel may not be very credible but I can't help but wonder why we haven't heard more about the human intelligence that should have been available.  You would naturally assume the CIA would have been working its assets into this group and would have had some indication this was coming.  Maybe it did but that hasn't come out of any of the testimony, as far as I know.  Instead of asking this and other questions relating to what happened on the ground, we've been stuck with an oversight committee more obsessed with talking points and adulterous 4-star generals.  I firmly believe in order to properly secure any resource in a hostile environment, you have to be procuring actionable intelligence.  This did not happen in Benghazi.  Until we address this shortcoming, it may continue to happen.

VIDEO: Drug-related Assassination Attempt Gone TERRIBLY Wrong!!

Ever wanted to know what a failed drug-related assassination looks like?  Check out the video below.  I'm not sure if you have any knowledge of home invasions so excuse me if I point out some glaring problems with the "innocent homeowner defends himself" story.

• You had three HEAVILY armed suspects going to a house in broad daylight.
• One of these suspects was carrying an AR-15.
• No one had any burglary tools in hand.  Not even a bag or a box to carry their stash away.
• They showed up with a three-man team and not a large vehicle to make off with a sizable stash.
• They work masks as they approached aka assaulted their way to the victim's home.

Anyone see any glaring problems with this?