The Power of Sound In Security

 

So, I don't have my hover-board nor my flying car. However, we have seen numerous technological feats within the security industry. Whether it be BRS Labs' use of artificial intelligence to "learn" and detect human behavior via CCTV feeds or the ever-changing world of biometrics, we have witnessed some very interesting and promising tech tools for the industry. Some of them we have featured here at The Security Dialogue.  The other day I came across the Twitter feed for Audio Analytics, a UK-based company which has developed a new dimension to the electronic security world.

Being the curious soul that I am, I contacted Audio Analytics about an interview to learn more about their products.  I spoke with Dr. Christopher Mitchell (PhD), Audio Analytics's CEO and Founder.  Going over his LinkedIn profile and other information I gathered from the Internet, I was drawn to Dr. Mitchell's extensive knowledge of sound information and signal processing.  He's received training at Harvard and a NCGE Fellow.  I digress.

Using audio in security applications is nothing new. Sonitrol was the first and remains the only company using audio as part of its monitoring service. So I asked what was the difference between what we've seen traditionally done with sound in our industry.  Dr. Mitchell replied, "Where Audio Analytic differs is that it does not capture a sound and then trigger an alarm at a monitoring station based on audio level for a human to interpret." Audio Analytic analyses the sound looking for specific sound pattern that can be used to raise an alert into an existing piece of security equipment such as a IP camera or VMS. The sound is looked at as data rather than as a recording or real-time stream of sound.

What surprised me about was the breadth of sound the software can detect.  Dr. Mitchell said it currently looks for sound in four categories - glass breaks, signs of aggression, car alarms, and gun shots. As you can imagine, glass breaks, gun shots, and car alarms didn't trigger as much interest as "aggression".  We've seen glass breaks and gun shot detection in various forms.  In law enforcement, ShotSpotter has become the latest in a growing use of sound analysis technologies.  When asked how they detect for "aggression", Dr. Mitchell stated they look for changes in pitch mostly and sounds attributed to aggressive behavior. Applications where you might see this deployed are lone workers, hospitals, convenience stores, and other places where any sign of aggressive behavior would need to be detected and mitigated as soon as possible.

Speaking of deployments, given the vast array of sounds Audio Analytic could possibly detect with applicable algorithms, it is not surprising to imagine the customers and applications extend far beyond the traditional security realm.  When pressed about this, Dr. Mitchell was quick to inform me they had been contacted by various entities who also recognize its potential and whose specific requests could not be discussed.

Knowing many of our customers are particularly liability conscious, I also inquired as to its implications to privacy. Mr. Mitchell explained the software "analyzes the sound as bits of data".  Therefore, there is not the ability within their software to "hear" the data being analyzed.  That capability would need to be addressed by a secondary piece of software or hardware.

Like all analytics, this is purely software that would need to be integrated with existing hardware designed to capture both sound and video. A company who has already integrated many of Audio Analytics' features is Next Level Security Systems an integrator offering a full suite of security services. NLSS' Gateway Security Platform provides "Audio Analytic with Glass Break Analytic and optional Gunshot, Aggression and Car Alarm packages", among a slew of other features. 

Overall, I am quite impressed with what I see being developed in analytics and Audio Analytic's software is no exception.  I can only imagine its applications and deployments as it continues to develop.  One of the greatest problems we face in security are false alarms.  Audio Analytic has the ability look deeper into the environments we protect and aid us in determining more accurately the difference between the benign and an actual threat.  Dr. Mitchell said it best, "In the security world, we have affection for silent movies".  Perhaps it's time we move on.  As I stated before with BRS Labs, I have seen the future and it's now.

My Problem With Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

Folks, I have some fundamental issues with most conspiracy theories.  Many have very little data to substantiate what they either indirectly imply or overtly say.  Most of it is pure speculation with very vague familiarity of the incident (i.e. "I have a cousin who knows a guy in the military that says", "Newt said", "I heard it from Sean Hannity").  If you weren't there, then it's just speculation.  The various theories and innuendos about Benghazi are of the same ilk.  I'll spell out why by attempting to debunk the top four Benghazi theories/innuendos:

1. As I mentioned before, Chris Stevens was NEVER EVER raped.  No one has stated this except for a lone newspaper out of Lebanon and few Facebook bloggers.
2. Chris Stevens was not killed as the result of being shot, beaten, or burned.  He was killed by smoke inhalation.  Simply put, it takes only 20 minutes of active burning for lethal levels of smoke and heated air to accumulate.  Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State, stated in her testimony before the House Oversight Committee on October 10, 2012, 
1. "Gunfire was heard from multiple locations on the compound.  One agent secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the information management officer, in the safe haven.  The other agents retrieved their M4 submachine guns and other tactical gear from Building B.  When they attempted to return to the main building, they encountered armed attackers and doubled back to Building B. The attackers used diesel fuel to set the main building ablaze.  Thick smoke filled the entire structure.  The Diplomatic Security agent began leading the Ambassador and Sean Smith through the debilitating smoke toward the emergency escape window.The agent, nearing unconsciousness himself, opened the window and crawled out.  He then realized they had become separated in the smoke.  So he reentered the building and searched multiple times for the Ambassador and Mr. Smith.  Finally the agent—suffering from severe smoke inhalation and barely able to breathe or speak – exited to the roof and notified the Tactical Operations Center of the situation (TOC)." 
2. Even IF, the Department of Defense could have supplied tactical resources to respond to Benghazi, the likelihood Chris Stevens would have already been dead is very high.  Chris Stevens, more than likely, died at the early onset of this engagement.  Deputy Assistant Secretary Lamb got her intel from the TOC and the agents' after-action reports.  In other words, she heard it from the folks on the ground and not Fox, ABC, CBS, etc.
3. The Department of Defense got an email to stand down.  This one comes from our dear friend, Newt Gingrich.  You'll do good to click on that link and note the timing of that email in relation to the election and the word "rumor" (ahem!....not a fact) in his quote.  
1. Okay, folks the likelihood the DoD would have received an email to "stand down" is very unlikely.  If there is one thing we've learned since Ollie North, it's never send an email when involved in far-reaching conspiracies.  This conversation would have happened over a secure communications line or in person at the Situation Room and would have relayed the assets DoD would have needed to support and/or pull of a successful rescue operation and their respective availability.  I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it takes the DoD a LONG time to respond to anything.  The assets (Special Operation Forces) DoD would have sent were more than likely on other missions related to GWOT (Global War on Terrorism).  Contrary to popular belief, the nearest special operations unit was in Rota, Spain. Folks, these guys don't ride on supersonic jets.  The flight time, not counting preparation, narrows your response time greatly.  Also, remember everything the government does in terms of its official actions is almost always recorded.  Leon Panetta will soon testify before Congress knowing this data was fully available to Congress.  My guess is Patraeus will testify to the same as it was his agency that provided most of the backup.
4. The White House is blackmailing Patraeus with the affair scandal.  Why?  Seriously.  Why would the White House blackmail a guy who was going to testify any way?  This investigation has been going on for months.  Why now?  Divorces are messy and affairs even messier but lying to Congress about what a whole division of an intelligence agency knew is even worse for everyone involved.  Patraeus and anyone with a pulse in DC knows that.  But wait - there are more problems with this theory:
1. The original investigator had sent shirtless pictures of himself to the victim.
2. The investigation began by a complaint from someone with no connection to the White House and also sleeping with another General officer supposedly.
3. The Patraeus affair would have presumably never have came to light had it not been for his mistress' threatening emails about her suspicions of the victim and Patraeus.  
4. Just in case you're wondering the FBI's jurisdiction in all of this, remember threatening someone is a crime and if done over email is federal offense due to the federal government's jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
5. Patraeus was still going to testify.  Remember Congress has subpoena power over anyone for any reason.  An oversight committee hearing is much like testifying in a court of law.  There is even oath.  The risk a blackmailer takes with blackmail once they reveal their hand is that target may be even more inclined to tell the truth.  If huge conspiracies are your thing, you can't afford to have this happen.
6. Two GOP congressmen knew of the investigation days before the election and just sat on it.  In any conspiracy, you need loyal and discreet people - a shirtless FBI dude and a couple of GOP congressmen "in the know" are less than ideal. 

Before I get deluged with comments, let me answer some questions:

Were there screw-ups in Benghazi? 

Yup. 

Am I excusing those? 

Nope.  

Do I believe this investigation has become partisan beyond comprehension?  

Yup.  

Do I think the American people will ever get the whole truth?  

No for a variety of reasons.  

Should this diminish our need to find the truth? 

No.  People died and we need to know why in order to fix it.  

What/who do you blame for these deaths?  I think it is very ironic the CIA is rumored to have had an annex devoted to assisting the Libyan government in covertly collecting heavy weapons such as mortars from local militias and the consulate across the street from them is hit by mortars.  There was an intelligence and diplomatic failure on several levels.  My sources in Libya tell me the government was beginning to crack down on these rogue groups who were holding on to these weapons as insurance and as leverage to further their own burgeoning political agendas.  My supposition is the CIA mission was discovered.  In order to show their discontent at the Agency's participation in this crackdown, they retaliated.  They couldn't identify the location of the CIA mission so I assume they hit the next biggest American target on a historic day.  As luck would have it, Chris Stevens was there.  Will we ever hear that from anyone?  No, but perhaps - just once - we need to.

Here's a link to all of the public testimony given so far:
http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-security-failures-of-benghazi/

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?