Navy Yard Shooting - Taking a Step Back

When horrible events like yesterday's shootings at the Washington Navy Yard take place, I'm often asked for my opinion. Over the years, I've unfortunately had many occasions to develop a keen skepticism about these things. I remember the horrible events in Norway in 2011, after which pundits were quick to point the finger at al Qaeda; as I heard about the attack while driving back to housing (I was working in the Middle East at the time), I consciously thought to myself that the pundits ought to wait for the facts to come out. I had a sneaking suspicion that Norway wasn't an al Qaeda operation, and my beliefs were borne out while many commentators had to recant. The same challenges apply to the Washington Navy Yard shootings, as this op-ed notes.

Incidents such as these gain meaning only when they can be studied in detail, in order that the facts can inform improvements in security posture. Endless bloviating by ill-informed media commentators often complicates those efforts, as even expert commentators are often unfamiliar with the specific details of a given case. (I remember several law student friends making similar complaints about the coverage of the George Zimmerman verdict a few months ago, which included commentary by "experts" who admitted to being unfamiliar with the details of the case, or whom practiced completely different types of law in completely different states - in other words, their commentary did nothing to inform the viewer about the case, it merely filled air time. Now, consider how many more attorneys there are than bona fide security and/or terrorism experts.) The victims, their families, and you the viewers deserve better than sweeping generalizations, rumor, and hearsay in the wake of such tragic events.

Surviving Active Shooter Events

I apologize for the sporadic posting of late. Followers of the Operation Highlander blog will know that I've had a few bits and pieces to take care of.

As I write this, I'm currently undertaking a security-related course about which I'll speak in more detail later. Today, I've been watching the active shooter event at the Washington Navy Yard unfold by way of Ranger Up's Facebook feed. I wanted to post the following video, which circulated after the horrific events in Newtown a few months ago. The video is well made and simple, and the information is solid.


Godspeed to the sheep dogs who are currently working to secure the Washington Navy Yard.

NSA Humor

From Doghouse Diaries via Failblog.

Thinking Through Surveillance Capabilities

I posted something similar to this on Facebook last night:

Here's a thought to keep you up at night. Everyone's been really upset about the whole Edward Snowden thing, and rightfully so; but think about this for a moment. CCTV/surveillance cameras are everywhere - moreso in the United Kingdom than the United States, but the United States is starting to expand CCTV coverage as well. Think back to the last time you uploaded a bunch of pictures to Facebook. Do you remember how Facebook knew EXACTLY who most of your friends were from facial recognition software? In fact, I recently uploaded a picture of myself and someone whom I had never uploaded a picture of, whom I'd only been friends with for a matter of days, and Facebook tagged her automatically, it didn't even ask me. Let's continue down this particular rabbit hole...

Now, think about how the only difference between a picture and a video is that a video is a lot of pictures displayed in sequence

Now, consider that the only limitation on applying Facebook-style facial recognition software to those videos is computing power.

Now, consider how much more accurate and powerful the software that governments use must be than what Facebook's using.

Now, remember that earlier point about how many CCTV/security cameras you walk past on a daily basis.

Now, ask yourself how similar the voice recognition capabilities must be.

I thought this through in a matter of about sixty seconds while walking from the bus to my room, and as I continue thinking, it really does feel like the days of Big Brother are upon us. Now, consider how glad you are that it was the accountable democratic model that won the Cold War, and not the authoritarian system that the democratic states were fighting.

One of my buddies claimed that a simple head tilt of fifteen degrees is enough to throw off the facial recognition software, but I'm skeptical. Another buddy posted this link, which I found to be enlightening; I've read 1984, but not Brave New World. Based upon the comic, I tend to think that aspects of both visions were prescient. (The concept is also reminiscent of several scenes in the 2002 film Minority Report.)

Be that as it may, as a security professional, I understand the need for programs and technical capabilities to try to keep people safe. There are certainly questions about scope, accountability, a citizen's right to and expectation of privacy, and mission creep. One of the benefits of the Western system is that we're able to actually ask these questions, and hold elected officials responsible when bounds are overstepped. I certainly don't think that this makes Edward Snowden a "hero" or a "whistleblower" - I think he's a traitor, and I hope that he faces justice sooner rather than later. Nor do I take much issue with legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. These programs are necessary, both from a public safety standpoint and from an overall risk management - as opposed to risk avoidance or acceptance - standpoint. What's important is that American voters continually ask these questions of their legislators and discuss the economic, political, and social ramifications of these programs in order to ensure that they serve their necessary function without being abused.

Liberal Arts Education Meets Risk Management Follow-Up

A few days ago, I published this post about liberal arts education. Just to follow up, here are a couple of articles I'd been holding in reserve: Worst College Majors for Your Career, and Ranger Up CEO Nick Palmisciano's 11 Get Into College Tips. That second one was a follow-up to Palmisciano's excellent video series on How to Get a Job. You know what they say: knowledge is power.

Rethinking Locks

Every day, we put a lot of trust in locks and keys. Have a look at some of these videos, and then reconsider that trust accordingly.





I picked my very first lock back in May - a fairly simple lock for a desk cabinet drawer. I picked it so that my classmates and I could use it, as the key had long since been lost. When researching how to go about trying it - for me, all it took was a straightened paper clip - I watched a few clips, and was both fascinated and shocked by how simple these mechanisms that we place so much trust in actually are. This, folks, is why a simple lock isn't enough to truly safeguard your family, possessions, or workplace.

Personal Security Online and In Person Follow-Up

Following up on this post, there are a few related stories: Love Is a Battlefield: How the Taliban are using sex to fight America, She’s Just Not That Into You: Air Force Warns of Online ‘Sextortion’, and Here’s a Reminder Not To Tell Your Foreign Lover U.S. Nuke Secrets. If you're in a position of sensitivity, either in national security or otherwise, and someone is really interested in you and really interested in the nitty, gritty details of what you do, then it may very well be too good to be true.