The New York governor's exposure as a client of an upscale prostitution ring this week affords editorial license to hold forth against the sins of hubris and hypocrisy. Then psychologists may capture the story to illustrate the contradictory sides of human nature. But to the security professional, Governor Spitzer's folly in creating audit trails when sending a coin-operated bed mate across state lines and making arrangements via communications susceptible to federal wiretap illustrates a phenomenon also seen among spies and traitors: indiscretion borne of overconfidence.
Whence the association between an extra-marital affair and treason? The requirement for deception is the same. As a tradecraft instructor once told my class of aspiring case officers many years ago, "Maintaining your cover takes the same talent you would use if cheating on your spouse." Thanks to Governor Spitzer, we can see that carrying out such illicit rendezvous indiscreetly is equally susceptible to breakdowns in basic tradecraft which, fundamentally, means breaches of security. After all, tradecraft amounts to nothing more than precautions taken to assure personal security and to safeguard a given operation.
So, setting aside the admittedly unsavory betrayals and hypocrisy permeating Spitzer's actions, let us examine his basic security failure. Here is a trained prosecutor with considerable expertise in the use of wiretaps and surveillance and forensic document examination. He should be an expert in conducting illicit activities without leaving traces, yet he leaves a trail for any rookie investigator to trip over while investigating the prostitution ring. What is the fundamental failure? Tradecraft or, in other words, failure to follow routine, mundane, and elementary security precautions.
While psychologists and pundits may speculate at the root cause and use this failure in operational security to underscore the governor's arrogance, there is another fundamental truth at the heart of the matter. It would have come into play even if Governor Spitzer were the most modest of men without any grandstanding proclivities. In reality, it comes equally into play in espionage cases and in cases where the most sophisticated traitors and case officers make the one fatal flaw which gives them away and compromises their operations or even their lives. What is the fundamental truth behind all these catastrophes?
Security is never convenient. And the corollary to this truth is that even the brightest participants in questionable activities will eventually surrender caution to convenience – hence their exposure. And it does not matter how smart they are, or how powerful, or how adroit in all other matters. All it takes is the calculated or chance exploitation of one fatal flaw in security, and exposure will result, with the attending ramifications of whatever represents catastrophe to those concerned. Ask the governor, who just added security malpractice to his growing list of fatal flaws.
– Nick Catrantzos
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Rethinking School Shooter Defense
This week, a radical Palestinian opened fire on Israeli seminary students with an assault rifle, killing 8 and wounding 11. Last month, a graduate of an Illinois university with a shotgun and at least one handgun terrorized students in an auditorium by taking the stage and shooting as many as he could before taking his own life. Taken together, these cases illustrate the real and not-so-real merits of relying on ready access to firearms on campus.
The American case produced debate to the effect that allowing weapons in the hands of responsible teachers or students could have limited the body count. One radio talk show caller opined that Reserve Officer Training Cadets should be so authorized on US campuses. The pro-firearm argument further stated that the firearm prohibition at schools only affects victims. Shooters bent on more serious crimes, hardly balk at adding weapons charges to murder. Does this position make sense?
The Israeli case may seem to say it does. Early reports claimed an armed citizen first stopped the shooter by returning fire with a handgun. Then security forces finished off the shooter. However, the Israeli casualty count was higher -- and this in a toughened society where armed security is much more prevalent than here, in the US. So, what is the answer?
Simply passing out guns to young adults isn't the answer. Why should we entrust deadly force to people who do not yet qualify for lower driving insurance rates because they are under 25? If, statistically, this group produces more injuries and fatalities, then surely it makes little sense to place into its hands even greater capacity to wield deadly force. But insisting on total weapons bans in the vicinity of any educational institution is equally unsupportable. After all, such bans carry weight with everyone but the shooter. Is there a middle ground?
Of course there is. First, let us not blindly cripple the ability for responsible persons to intervene. If Americans qualify for the authorization to carry a firearm anywhere else in the same jurisdiction, then let them do the same on campus. If they still want response options beyond just hunkering down and waiting for a bullet, allow and encourage the use of purely defensive weapons.
One such defensive weapon now comes with certain deterrent values: the commercially available taser. The first deterrent aims at limiting abuse of the device to commit crime. The modern taser comes with taggants that spit out like confetti when the user fires at a target. The taggants, tiny pieces of paper with unique registration markings, trace to the user and leave an audit trail for law enforcement to use in collaboration with the vendor. Tracking down the taser user becomes fairly straightforward. But an even better deterrent is bundled in.
Commercial grade tasers now come with a laser sight, just like target pistols. Not only does this improve the chance that the user will hit the target, it also gives the target pause. If you are a school shooter who suddenly sees a red dot on your torso, what is your first thought? That's right: the SWAT team has arrived. Under the circumstances, the dot alone may slow a school shooter down long enough to allow at least one potential victim to get out of the line of fire. Interestingly, if the manufacturer's claims are valid, a taser is not classified as a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. If so, then this is a way to introduce some kind of response capability into the equation without crossing the existing line against firearms proliferation.
And what to do until this debate advances to a point of action? Let me see, where did I store my old laser pointer?
– Nick Catrantzos
The American case produced debate to the effect that allowing weapons in the hands of responsible teachers or students could have limited the body count. One radio talk show caller opined that Reserve Officer Training Cadets should be so authorized on US campuses. The pro-firearm argument further stated that the firearm prohibition at schools only affects victims. Shooters bent on more serious crimes, hardly balk at adding weapons charges to murder. Does this position make sense?
The Israeli case may seem to say it does. Early reports claimed an armed citizen first stopped the shooter by returning fire with a handgun. Then security forces finished off the shooter. However, the Israeli casualty count was higher -- and this in a toughened society where armed security is much more prevalent than here, in the US. So, what is the answer?
Simply passing out guns to young adults isn't the answer. Why should we entrust deadly force to people who do not yet qualify for lower driving insurance rates because they are under 25? If, statistically, this group produces more injuries and fatalities, then surely it makes little sense to place into its hands even greater capacity to wield deadly force. But insisting on total weapons bans in the vicinity of any educational institution is equally unsupportable. After all, such bans carry weight with everyone but the shooter. Is there a middle ground?
Of course there is. First, let us not blindly cripple the ability for responsible persons to intervene. If Americans qualify for the authorization to carry a firearm anywhere else in the same jurisdiction, then let them do the same on campus. If they still want response options beyond just hunkering down and waiting for a bullet, allow and encourage the use of purely defensive weapons.
One such defensive weapon now comes with certain deterrent values: the commercially available taser. The first deterrent aims at limiting abuse of the device to commit crime. The modern taser comes with taggants that spit out like confetti when the user fires at a target. The taggants, tiny pieces of paper with unique registration markings, trace to the user and leave an audit trail for law enforcement to use in collaboration with the vendor. Tracking down the taser user becomes fairly straightforward. But an even better deterrent is bundled in.
Commercial grade tasers now come with a laser sight, just like target pistols. Not only does this improve the chance that the user will hit the target, it also gives the target pause. If you are a school shooter who suddenly sees a red dot on your torso, what is your first thought? That's right: the SWAT team has arrived. Under the circumstances, the dot alone may slow a school shooter down long enough to allow at least one potential victim to get out of the line of fire. Interestingly, if the manufacturer's claims are valid, a taser is not classified as a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. If so, then this is a way to introduce some kind of response capability into the equation without crossing the existing line against firearms proliferation.
And what to do until this debate advances to a point of action? Let me see, where did I store my old laser pointer?
– Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
