Saturday, November 5, 2016

Update: New Podcast Episode Is Up!!

Welp, as you may have noticed, activity here has spiked. Don't be fooled. I'm still very busy with work and family. But I do have some spare time every now and then. Today's latest podcast episode is a result of that. It's well worth a listen, as it's a rarely if ever discussed topic. Enjoy!

Episode 05 - Risk Management and Home Security
In this episode, I cover the missing link to traditional home security advice - the risk management process. After a year or longer absence from blogging and podcast, I'm back to go over the three major components of the risk management process and how to conduct them.

By the way, this month I have a free Kindle book giveaway. Give it a go at https://giveaway.amazon.com/p/2b809221600b8ab2#ln-pl. Contest ends on November 17, 2016!!

Friday, November 4, 2016

New Feature!!



So I'm adding a few new features to the blog. If you look up, you'll see I've changed the menu bar a bit. We've added page exclusively for my FOIA requests. Why? Well, if you've been a long-time reader, you'll remember I do a lot of Freedom of Information Act requests on security-related topics. Many of you have asked if I would add a feature or link to my requests. There you have it, right above the title of this post. Not good enough for you? Click here, you lazy sap. Go ahead and do it, even if it would be way cooler if you didn't and just clicked the space in the menu bar I made just for this very reason. No? Your loss.

Okay, let me fill you in on one of the requests I'm doing. Currently, I've been waiting for almost six months for the State Department to get off its rear and deliver on a request for all correspondence on false passports. I figure this could be an interesting find, especially given the topics relevance to many things covered in the media for the last year or longer. The request was completed but the records I requested haven't been released yet. I'm in a bit of a "holding pattern".

I have some other requests I'll be doing. If you have any suggestions or ideas, drop me a note in the "contact me" box.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

My Guide To Understanding What Constitutes A Solid Source Of Information


Well, I think we can all agree this election needs to be over yesterday. The deluge of crazy we've witnessed has been extraordinary. It seems like everywhere you look there's a post or an article containing what should be valuable information and have very little to any. The endless cycle of crazy reactions and hysteria that happens with every new "update" has eroded what little credibility many of us in security who depend on this information have in sources. There are good sources, though, still out there.

I have created the following guidelines to sort through the chaff. This list is not just for political news, even though seemingly everything has become political.
  1. If it hasn't been reported in the news yet but some insert-the-name-of-a-group-you-identify-with's page has the "scoop", Google the keywords in the story. Also, for goodness sake, check Snopes.com. Most of the time, most of the "stories" I see on social media are debunked first by Snopes. Some have been debunked for years.
  2. Not every site with the words "news" or "breaking" is actually a news site. Treat these sources as GARBAGE.
  3. Any site that is run by people who share your exact worldview is also GARBAGE and so are its "sources".
  4. Any stats in a meme are also GARBAGE if they don't give a source.
  5. Most people on social media have ZERO clue how to sort and analyze stats. If your buddy is giving his arguments on stats with mostly his opinions, he's probably full of sh*t.
  6. Life is full of gray. Not everyone is evil who shares ideas that are different than our own. Be careful of sources who want to inject their own morality in what's supposed to be an objective account of a story.
  7. Be careful of "triggers". These include images or words used in connection with an often poorly sourced and highly-opinionated piece that are often irrelevant to the piece but there to gain your reaction.
  8. It's often full of "damning evidence" discovered in just days to tell a story of a conspiracy that's been happening for decades.
  9. The site or publisher have a SIGNIFICANT interest in the story being told the way it is by them. Often, for their own profit and gain. Treat these as garbage too.
  10. Treat any source that can't be named or won't name other sources to corroborate its information as potentially garbage too.
I use something a bit different for shootings, bombings, and other "breaking" security-related news.
  1. Never trust first reports. Trust me when I tell you that eyewitnesses sometimes have terrible memories. I have seen shootings which witnesses report what they believe to be multiple gunshots resembling machine guns to be resolved to a single to a few shots from one shooter. Eyewitnesses can and do distort shooter identifications. Active shooters often have multiple first responders on-scene and some are in plain clothes carrying guns. Imagine being frightened and knowing a shooter is out there and you come across from the distance an armed man scanning for targets. You can't see a badge or uniform so you naturally assume that person is a probable shooter.
  2. Scanners are great but most civilians have little to any clue what they're listening for. 10-codes are department-dependent. Suspect descriptions are often given with little verification (they need to be transmitted quickly so the bad guy can be neutralized). Scenes described by first responders can also be subject to perception - a description heard over the radio of "blood everywhere" means something different for new rookies versus veteran officers.
  3. ANY loud noise will surely be described as on-going gunfire.
  4. EVERYONE has a political agenda except for responding cops and victims. Seriously, refer back to previous guidelines about sources and who you can trust. Hint: no one you like.
  5. If your source touts an immediate conspiracy afoot that would benefit them politically, you should ALWAYS ignore them.
  6. Anyone trying to be "first"to report will almost always give you bad information. Real pros take their time and vet their sources.
  7. Video is great but it doesn't always tell the complete story. Most video of an event will often be edited and cropped to show what the publisher believes is relevant for his/her audience. In other words, they may have little clue what they're looking at but are deciding for you what you should see. That's crap. I want all of the video or none of it.
  8. With bombings, "experts" will often claim sophistication in order to claim an actor they believe did the act without actually having evidence they did do it. "Sophistication" is a term used to describe an assortment of things about a device. If an "expert" won't describe what that constitutes in comparison to other bombings of similar ilk, I tend not to trust that analysis. In my limited experience, "sophistication" is often attributed to big name groups to events that have high casualties. I find that the likelier explanation is much better. A simpler device placed at the right time and place with enough targets does as much damage if not more than one "experts" claim is "sophisticated".
  9. Don't trust "experts" who have commentary than actual facts. I'll happily take analysis from a guy with bad facts than from a guy who has no facts but thinks he's right all the time.
  10. Bad acts are not exclusive to any one group. There are a lot of bad things that happen in our small world to a lot of people. Just because a cop gets shot by someone doesn't mean that someone is of a certain race or belongs to a certain group. Watch out for the agendas of your sources here.
  11. Terrorism is a fairly simple thing with a very simple description. Use it before you belittle or demean an entire group for acts that aren't terrorism. Simply saying things we don't like or even disgust us doesn't make them terrorists. Sure, it makes them jerks but it doesn't make them the ultimate jerk.

    Here's how the FBI defines it:

    "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
  12. Trust anyone who thinks "we should wait this out and see where this leads". These guys are probably pros and make a living being right a lot about these things.
That's it for now. I hope this helps you out.

About Us