Etiquette as Insider Threat Defense

In a world of instant intimacy, one of the safest ways to keep adversaries away is an old device returned to modern service: etiquette. How so? Consider. All mortals need community and a chance to exchange ideas and share experiences. Where do they turn increasingly for business or social connections? Today’s popular alternatives are social networking sites. Many of these sites facilitate propagation of personal information and unguarded communications that may compromise participants. Opposing attorneys in child custody cases, for example, have recently taken to searching social networking sites for evidence that supports their client’s case against a former spouse based on the latter’s posted remarks and photographs or videos indicating irresponsibility or infidelity. (See J. Ruzich, “What you post can come back to haunt you: Attorneys in divorce, child custody cases increasingly searching online for evidence,” Chicago Tribune, June 15, 2011, at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/news/ct-x-0615-divorce-facebook-20110615_1_divorce-social-networking-evidence-attorneys for details.)

If adversarial lawyers can exploit such revelations, so can savvy adversaries. Not only do such revelations open the discloser to extortion in flagrant cases, they also offer information that gives adversaries the means to influence or recruit the injudicious discloser who is too free with personal details. What is behind such impetuous self-revelations? Perhaps it is just a natural byproduct of people falling prey to instant intimacy at their own and at their employer’s expense. In professional and personal relationships, as a journalist and long term observer of the social scene concluded, “There is no such thing as instant intimacy.” (Per J. Martin, Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005, p. 107.)

Indeed, as a student of violent victimizations found in uncovering methods common for attackers when attempting to get close to their victims, this effort to establish instant intimacy presents in the form of forced teaming, a technique whereby the assailant creates a false bond with the victim by making common cause and saying “we” in referring to self and victim before launching attacks from rape to abduction. (See G. de Becker, The Gift of Fear, New York: Dell Publishing, 1998, p. 64.) To the defender, whether on a personal or professional level, attempts at instant intimacy deserve more suspicion than receptivity.

Always remember that trust is earned, and earning trust is something that takes time, hence traditions based in etiquette that reflect this classic insight:

Human nature does not change. It still takes a while to get to know and trust people, and the phony use of the manners of friendship by strangers and mere acquaintances only misleads people into thinking that instant intimacy is pleasant and safe. (A useful reminder from J. Martin, Miss Manners’ Guide for the Turn of the Millennium, New York: Fireside, 1990, p.4.)

-- Nick Catrantzos

Flash Robs: When "Guidance" Says Nothing

Why does perceived need to say something -- anything -- about a topic of moment for one's constituency so often result in products devoid of substance? A retail association's rush to issue "guidelines" on what to do about flash mob looters makes this point. While it is available at http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=News&op=viewlive&sp_id=1167, the download is a disappointment to a shopkeeper looking for useful insight into how to prevent loss or mitigate damage at the hands of a flash mob mobilized for mayhem. Instead, eight of the ten pages of the report delve into preambles and refer to a retailer survey -- all interesting matters in a different context -- yet more than a little divergent from the stated point of the "guidance" document. The remaining two pages are equally superficial.

In a show of erudition, this retail group's white paper even eschews mention of "flash mob" on its cover, preferring a title with the more arcane but technically correct "Multiple Offender Crimes" label. At least the subtitle hints at something more useful: Preparing for and Understanding the Impact of their Tactics. Yet it also disappoints, in the end.

The bulk of what purports to be guidance is a statistical compilation of losses followed by references to recent cases of looting by flash mobs. What value does this offer to anyone on the front lines of exposure? Perhaps it is akin to seeing one's shop in the news with pictures of it vandalized or burnt to the ground if one happened to be out of the country and incommunicado at the time of incident. But surely this amounts to telling Noah about the flood. After eight pages of reworking the obvious, what do two pages of "Suggested Guidance and Sample Response Protocol" offer? Nothinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifg more than worn platitudes along the lines of be a good witness, observe and report, stay alert to any signs of groups converging, keep in close touch with mall security and local law enforcement, follow corporate policy on loss prevention -- the obvious made patronizing by being warmed up, over cooked, and served up as though some special dish never before tasted.

How did this retail "guidance" surface in the first place? A news article(http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110809/D9P0I3AG0.html) took at face value the purported aim of this white paper to offer "steps stores can take to ward off the robberies." A closer examination, indeed any examination, would have revealed that such steps were nowhere to be found.

In security as in any worthy field of endeavor, guidance has to say something useful and relevant. Rewarming platitudes in the zeal to appear topical and responsive is a disservice, not a plus. Flash robbers have nothing to fear from retailers who rely on such"guidance." Isn't that a shame?

- Nick Catrantzos