Could Israel's "Iron Dome" Make the Case for a Missile Defense Shield?

The last few days have been extraordinary in the Middle East to say the least.  Israel was attacked by a barrage of missiles fired from Gaza.  However, nearly all of those missiles were defeated by Israel's missile defense shield known as "Iron Dome".  Missile defense systems are nothing new and we've seen them work in a variety of theaters of operation.  Most recently, they were highly effective during the United States' invasion of Iraq where Patriot missile batteries went toe-to-toe with Scud missile launchers.

A recent article from Slate.com explains the breadth of that success:

Israeli officials are claiming that the shield is destroying 90 percent of missiles and rockets it aims at that have been fired into southern Israel by Hamas. This level of success is unprecedented compared with older missile defense systems such as the American-made Patriot model used during the 1991 Gulf War. Israelis have almost always suffered far fewer casualties than Palestinians have, but Iron Dome has made that disparity even larger. As of Monday, Israel has reported three casualties, all of which occurred during a temporary malfunction in the missile-defense system.

Credit: Voice of America; http://www.voanews.com/content/israel-iron-dome-passes-first-major-test-despite-some-weaknesses/1550087.html

To say the least, this is a huge boom for future missile defense deployments. Hamas has launched 1,147 rockets at Israel between 14 November 2012 and 20 November 2012. Israel has claimed to have shot down 90 percent of those missiles. Did I forget what makes this system so unique? With the exception of a minor glitch that occurred at the beginning of the hostilities, Iron Dome is reported to have been 90 percent accurate with 400 kills in its first few days of days of operation.

A typical battery includes a radar and three launchers, each holding 20 Tamir interceptors. It reportedly had a 100% success rate in tests prior to deployment.

 

This graph provides an idea as to the area Iron Dome has to cover and what it is supposed to counter.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/QassamsRange.jpg

Many argue this missile defense shield is a "game changer". There is a lot to say that it has. Hamas and Hezebollah have used these attacks in the past as leverage and to demonstrate their resolve to see the conflicts to the end. By "taking the wind out of their sails", Israel has certainly taken much of the "punch" out of Hamas' most potent psychological weapons.

Most telling is the language and support coming from the United States before the November attacks.  The U.S. House of Representatives stated in its FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act  which not only supported Iron Dome with a $680 million investment.  It went a step further by directing the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, to "explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system." You don't have to be an expert in missile defense technology to know why the US considers this an "investment". We want to develop our own to deploy in the States. Stop rolling your eyes. Given the cost and logistics of coordinating prevention, mitigation, and response to surface-to-air missile threats in the U.S., this has the potential for a lot of "traction" in certain circles.

Will this put an end to rocket attacks? Probably not. I say this because the technology behind these rockets is constantly evolving. Unless Israel can shore up the transportation/smuggling routes arms dealers use, then there will never be an end to such attacks. However, as Israel has convincingly demonstrated, their relative lethality can be greatly reduced by missile defense shields such as Iron Dome.

The Confusion behind Fusion Centers

On October 3, 2012, the United States Senate published some not-so surprising news for many of us familiar with the "results" produced by fusion centers.  It turns out someone decided to look into what many assumed was one of the largest examples of bureaucracy - "fusion centers".  For those of you unfamiliar with fusion centers and what they do, essentially they are intelligence sharing centers created by state governments and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to work in concert with federal efforts to prevent, respond, and mitigate the threat of terrorism in the United States.  There are currently 72 centers nationwide.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations stated, "Department of Homeland Security efforts to engage state and local intelligence “fusion centers” has not yielded significant useful information to support federal counterterrorism intelligence efforts."  This a very damning report to say the least for fusion centers.  It doesn't help their cause that they have been mired by criticism ranging from the infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) 2009 report which labeled supporters of the Ron Paul movement and various right wing organizations and grass roots movements as terrorists and the Virginia fusion center 2009 report which stated universities were potential hubs of terrorist activities and labeled hacktivism as a form of terrorism.  

The Subcommittee stated in their press release

“It’s troubling that the very ‘fusion’ centers that were designed to share information in a post-9/11 world have become part of the problem. Instead of strengthening our counterterrorism efforts, they have too often wasted money and stepped on Americans’ civil liberties,” said Senator Tom Coburn, the Subcommittee’s ranking member who initiated the investigation.

The investigation determined that senior DHS officials were aware of the problems hampering effective counterterrorism work with the fusion centers, but did not always inform Congress of the issues, nor ensure the problems were fixed in a timely manner.

“Unfortunately, DHS has resisted oversight of these centers. The Department opted not to inform Congress or the public of serious problems plaguing its fusion center and broader intelligence efforts. When this Subcommittee requested documents that would help it identify these issues, the Department initially resisted turning them over, arguing that they were protected by privilege, too sensitive to share, were protected by confidentiality agreements, or did not exist at all. The American people deserve better. I hope this report will help generate the reforms that will help keep our country safe,” Dr. Coburn said.

Where it gets particularly disturbing is in their highlighted conclusions about their investigation.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that it has spent somewhere between $289 million and $1.4 billion in public funds to support state and local fusion centers since 2003, broad estimates that differ by over $1 billion. The investigation raises questions about the value this amount of funding and the nation’s more than 70 fusion centers are providing to federal counterterrorism efforts:

• The investigation found that DHS intelligence officers assigned to state and local fusion centers produced intelligence of “uneven quality – oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism.”

• DHS officials did not provide evidence to the Subcommittee showing unique contributions that state and local fusion centers made to assist federal counter terrorism intelligence efforts that resulted in the disruption or prevention of a terrorism plot.

• The investigation also found that DHS did not effectively monitor how federal funds provided to state and local fusion centers were used to strengthen federal counterterrorism efforts. A review of the expenditures of five fusion centers found that federal funds were used to purchase dozens of flat screen TVs, two sport utility vehicles, cell phone tracking devices and other surveillance equipment unrelated to the analytical mission of an intelligence center. Their mission is not to do active or covert collection of intelligence. In addition, the fusion centers making these questionable expenditures lacked basic, “must-have” intelligence capabilities, according to DHS assessments.

Here's the report:

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=49139e81-1dd7-4788-a3bb-d6e7d97dde04 

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.