Weblogs – Page 10 – Lucien Canton CEM

Category: Weblogs

Revealing Security Flaws Raises Ethical Issues

Posted on January 18, 2016November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

A recent investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle into a murder on the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) raises some interesting ethical questions. In the course of covering a shooting death on the system, Chronicle reporters learned that the majority of the surveillance cameras on the BART trains are dummies, that is, non-working cameras designed to act as decoys and deter crimes. Police were able to capture images of the alleged shooter entering and leaving the car where the shooting occurred but had no footage of the actual shooting. This lack of surveillance footage led to the discovery of the decoy cameras. Based on a walking survey of BART trains, reports estimate that as much as three quarters of the cameras in the cars were decoys.

The use of dummy cameras is not unusual in the security industry; I’ve used them myself in internal investigations. However, it is not a common practice in the transportation industry and BART is taking considerable heat over the decision not to install working cameras in all cars. The agency received over $200 million in State and federal security funds since 2011 and is being criticized for not seeking additional funds for camera installations. BART does intend to upgrade its fleet in 2017 and all the new cars will have functional cameras that can be viewed in real time.

The decision to install decoy cameras has obvious ethical implications but a more interesting issue is the role of the Chronicle in breaking this story. Revealing a major security flaw in a transportation system could lead to increased criminal activity by removing a deterrent to bad behavior. There are also concerns it could increase the system’s exposure to terrorist attack. On the other hand, exposing the use of decoys has resulted in BART considering installing more cameras in existing cars prior to the scheduled fleet replacement. There is also the argument made by BART that the layered approach to security works; they were able to identify the alleged gunman even without footage of the actually shooting. This suggests that revealing decoy cameras may reduce deterrence but would not greatly affect the system’s ability to investigate criminal activity.

It’s an interesting question in journalistic ethics. Which is the greater good: helping maintain a system that provides deterrence but little real protection or exposing the system in order to force reform, accepting that it might lead to harm in the short term?

Have we become a nation of wimps?

Posted on November 19, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

“The purpose of terror is to terrorize.” This quote by Lenin lies at the heart of any terrorist attack. We forget that ultimately terrorists do not have the capacity to win. What terrorist group, no matter how well armed or funded, can match the combined might of the world’s armed forces? Military victory is not the point, which is why military forces are seldom the target of such attacks.

We also make incorrect assumptions about terrorists, seeing them as a monolithic international conspiracy with a growing capacity to do us harm. The reality is that terrorist groups are fragmented and often act independent of any central authority. The goals of Da’esh in Syria are not the same as those of Boko Haram in Nigeria or the New Peoples’ Army in the Philippines. Nor are their methods all that sophisticated; they are well coordinated but use primarily small arms and explosives.

So if terrorists don’t actually intend to achieve a military victory, what do they want? Donald Rumsfeld expanded on Lenin’s quote saying, “The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. It’s to change the behavior of the people that are being terrorized.” The ultimate goal of terrorism is to create so much fear and anger that governments impose repressive measures and use violence against their own citizens, eroding popular support and eventually leading to violent political change. While no terrorist group may have successfully overthrown a state, terrorist groups have created conditions that led to the collapse of governments.

So how’s that working for them? Since 9/11 we have seen a significant erosion of civil liberties and surrendered many of our core values as Americans. We have established an intelligence bureaucracy so bloated that no one really knows how big it is or what is being done or left undone. We have sanctioned incarceration without trial, condoned assassination, and adopted torture as national policy. We have turned airline travel into a nightmare with security measures of questionable value. We have discriminated against our own citizens on the basis of their religion and national origin. We are seriously debating turning away refugees and increasing the government’s capability to spy on us by reducing our defenses against computer crime.

We have done this out of fear.

One of the benefits of soft targets is that it creates fear in the average person. We take it personally, “Hey, this could happen to ME!” We react emotionally and irrationally, forgetting that our chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is something on the order of 1 in 20 million. You are four times more likely to be hit by a bolt of lightning than be killed by a terrorist. It’s not about you. Get over it.

If we are truly at war with terrorism, we have to demonstrate our will to win by holding to those values that have made this country what it is. We have to accept that in a war there are always casualties. We cannot prevent every attack and no one can guarantee our complete safety, no matter how many freedoms we surrender. We need to recognize that as a country our capacity to absorb damage is greater than any terrorist can inflict upon us and that as long as we hold to our values, they can never win. We need to stop letting fear rule our lives.

Is Your Homeowners Insurance Adequate for Disasters?

Posted on October 9, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

In the aftermath of a disaster, most people immediately think of the government as being the source of recovery assistance. However, government assistance is actually quite limited and focuses primarily on the immediate need for temporary repairs. The true funding for disaster recovery comes from the insurance industry.

The concept of insurance is relatively simple. Policy holders pay into a fund that is then reinvested by the insurance company to increase the size of the fund and generate a profit for the company. As needed, people affected by a disaster are paid from the fund. The assumption is, of course, that the number of people paying into the fund will always exceed those taking out and that there will always be sufficient liquidity in the fund to pay claims and generate profit.

But what if the system starts to fail? A policy analysis by the Cato Institute shows that U.S. insurance losses from natural catastrophes went from $16.1 billion in 2003 up to $71.3 billion in 2012. In 2012, the combination of Hurricane Sandy and drought meant that more than 90% of the worldwide insured losses occurred in the United State (the normal average is about 65%). Increasing population density and property values mean that the cost of disasters will continue to increase.

Insurance companies react to these rising costs in several ways. The most obvious is to raise premiums, either by increasing the cost for policies in general or by raising rates for those who have filed a claim. Depending on which state you live in, the cost of filing a single claim can increase your policy cost by 9% to over 30%.

Anyone who has ever filed a claim of any sort knows that another method of reducing costs is to limit the amount paid on the claim. Insurance adjusters are very adept at quick settlements and requiring extensive inventories and documentation that are difficult to produce before paying out claims.

More disconcerting, however, is the decision not to insure against loss in the first place. Following one of the worst fires seasons on record here in California, a number of homeowners have begun to receive letters of non-renewal due to “unacceptable risk for wildfire.” Insurance companies cannot discriminate in providing coverage and must request rate increases but they are allowed to dictate the conditions under which they will ensure your home.

California homeowners do have a number of protections provided by law, including an insurer of last resort in the California Fair Plan, but the increasing costs of natural disasters will inevitable result in a change in how insurance is traditionally provided. We may well see the emergence of a new form of insurance, possibly one dependent on government. The California Earthquake Authority and the National Flood Insurance Program were created to address risks that insurance companies were unwilling to underwrite. Following September 11th, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 created a temporary reinsurance program to help subsidize private sector insurance. Clearly, though, things cannot continue as they are without an increasingly heavy burden falling on the individual homeowner.

Don’t Let The Bad Guys Win: Reflections on Sept 11th

Posted on September 11, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

In a marvelous bit of irony, on this day fourteen years ago I was in Salt Lake City attending a course on protecting critical infrastructure from terrorist attack when I heard about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I knew that the event was significant but I had no idea how much my world was about to change.

This is a day for remembrance, for honoring those who fell and those who still suffer the effects of their selfless service in those dark days. But I think we do them a disservice by not also taking a harsh look at the results of that day and asking. “Is this truly who we are?”

One of the most fundamental lessons we learned from the terrorist attacks of the 70’s was that terrorists do not expect to win through their attacks. They don’t need to. Instead, their goal is to destabilize through fear – to make the government react so harshly to the threat of terrorism that eventually the citizens of the country under attack will rise up against the government themselves.

And it’s working.

Consider some the results of that single incident:

We have replaced a flawed intelligence system with an intelligence bureaucracy so bloated that no one can say how much it costs, how many people are employed in it, or how effective it is. Worse, we can’t say how many agencies duplicate work done by others or identify intelligence gaps.
We have spent billions on protective equipment without a strategy that identifies what equipment is needed or how we will sustain the capacity we build.
We have accepted inconveniences in travel created by a system that is largely just theater with little real protective benefit.
We have treated our own citizens as hostile and subversive simply because they share or appear to share common customs and faith with our enemies. Even further, we routinely spy on our own citizens, no matter what their faith.
We have allowed our own laws and constitutional safeguards to be subverted in the name of the war on terrorism, allowing people to be held indefinitely without trial and condoning the use of torture.

From where I stand, it sure looks like we’re giving up a lot in fear of an enemy that really has only a limited capacity to hurt us. There is a war taking place but it’s not being fought just on the battlefields of the Middle East. If we lose sight of our values, if we abrogate our core beliefs, then the bad guys win. If we allow that to happen, we break faith with all those who fell on September 11^th.

Avenging One Dead Lion Doesn’t Solve The Problem

Posted on August 5, 2015 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment

One the most glaring weaknesses of the Internet is how mob psychology can focus on symptoms rather than solutions. We see yet another glaring example of this with the virtual fury unleashed on the Minnesota dentist accused of illegally killing a popular lion in Zimbabwe.

By now almost everyone is familiar with the story: Walter Palmer paid $50,000 to hunt a lion, alleged participated in luring the lion out of a protected game park onto private land, botched the kill with a bow or crossbow, killed the lion some forty hours later with a rifle, and attempted to destroy the tracking tag on the body.

As result of the furor on the Internet, Palmer has been forced to close his practice, take down his website, and go into hiding because of death threats. Over 150,000 people have written the White House demanding he be extradited to Zimbabwe. What’s significant, though, is that all this happened prior to Palmer being charged with a crime. He has committed no crime under US law and it is only with the last few days that Zimbabwe has begun formal extradition proceedings. What happened to the presumption of innocence that underpins our system of jurisprudence?

The larger issue, however, is that Walter Palmer is a distraction that in the long run doesn’t really matter. His reputation and means of livelihood have been taken away and he will be forced into a lengthy legal battle over extradition with the possibility of incarceration in a country not known for its commitment to human rights. He will soon be forgotten.

But here’s the problem ignored by the Internet mob: according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 600 lions are killed legally by trophy hunters each year, equating to roughly 2% of the dwindling lion population of about 30,000, an unsustainable rate. The International Fund for Animal Welfare reported that during the period 1999 to 2008, 64% of the “trophies” from those kills were brought home by Americans.

How could we fix this? The US Fish and Wildlife Service currently lists African lions as “threatened” which allows the trade in lion trophies to continue. Changing that designation to “endangered” would ban any such importation. The Service proposed such a change in October but to date nothing has been done.

In the great scheme of life, destroying one hunter who happened to get caught doesn’t do much other than draw temporary attention to the problem. It probably won't be much of a deterrent to other trophy hunters. If you’re serious about stopping the trophy trade, take action. Write your elected representatives and push for a change in the US Fish and Wildlife designation and a ban on the trophy trade. It’s a bit more work than posting a snarky comment on Facebook but it’s how you make a difference.

It’s the end of the world – again!

Posted on July 22, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

There have been a number of dire predictions making the rounds on the Internet over the past few days. First there was an excellent article in the New Yorker entitled The Really Big One that talks about a major earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone. Then there were predictions from the National Weather Service that what might be the worst El Niño effect in twenty years is forming in the Pacific and we may be in for a winter of destructive floods. Added to this mix was the prediction that we would experience a “mini ice age” in 2030. And now today comes the prediction that we are due for a massive earthquake on the Hayward fault “any day now.”

If you’re not feeling apprehensive, you’re not paying attention. We’re all going to die!

Well, while it’s certainly true we’re all going to die, these predictions are being blown out of proportion to make it appear that the end of the world is just around the corner. Here are the facts:

The Cascade subduction zone scenario is indeed real and a truly frightening one. That’s why government agencies at all levels have been planning for it for at least the past twenty years. There’s still a lot to do and it will probably be inadequate but this is not a new threat.
It does appear that this will be a strong El Niño year and there will be floods. The last strong El Niño period saw almost every county in California declared a disaster area. But we know it’s coming and we have considerable experiencing in California with flood fighting. It’s not going to be fun but we’ll get through it.
The mini ice age? This is sparked by something called the “Maunder Minimum”, a period of reduced solar activity in the 17^th Century that coincided with the Little Ice Age. However, the Little Ice Age began before and ended after the Maunder Minimum and the expected drop in temperature will be negligible given our present level of global warning, something on the order of 0.1 degree Celsius.
According to the US Geological Survey, the recent 4.0 earthquake on the Hayward Fault was a standalone event and not a precursor to a larger temblor. However, there is a 31% chance of a major earthquake on the fault within the next 30 years. This is not a new threat: my colleagues and I have been telling you this for years. And, geologically speaking, it is due “any minute now.”

Bottom line, most of these threats are real and could occur at any moment but that is the nature of disasters. There is no reason to be more frightened of them today than you were yesterday. What you can do is prepare and not just for these large events but for disaster in general. You know the drill: make plan, build a kit, and get the facts.

Maybe today you’ll actually listen and do something about it.

Related articles

Live Life to the Fullest – A Tail From the Dog Park

Posted on July 1, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Tails From The Dog Park, Weblogs

Last week we had to say good bye to another of our good friends at the dog park, Buster the Beagle, affectionately known to his friends as Little B. Sad as we are at his passing, we take comfort in the fact that Buster lived a full life, having reached the grand age of 17. This achievement is even more remarkable when one hears Buster’s story and realizes he should have been dead years ago.

When Geoff, Buster’s guardian of many years, first met him, Buster was in the possession of a rather unpleasant farmer who told Geoff tersely, “You want this dog? If not, I’m going to take him out and shoot him.” One look at Buster and Geoff knew he couldn’t let that happen.

Sometime later, during an examination by his vet, Geoff found the reason why Buster favored one of his rear legs. It seems someone had shot at him in the past and Buster had shotgun pellets embedded in his leg. The pellets couldn’t be removed, leaving Buster with a permanent limp and trouble with arthritis in his later years.

This early trauma never phased Buster. Even as health issues slowed him in his final years, he never missed an opportunity to go for a walk and or to visit with his friends at the dog park. Every time we thought the end was near, he would rebound and surprise us. We thought he would go on forever.

Buster reminds us that life is what we make of it. His early mistreatment didn’t stop him from finding and loving his best friend and his new family. His limp didn’t stop him from acting like a puppy on occasion. And, while old age slowed him a bit, it didn’t diminish the joy he felt in visiting his friends at the dog park. We will miss Buster but will remember his lesson that quality of life is more important than mere longevity.

A Flooded Zoo Can Pose A Real Challenge to Responders

Posted on June 15, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

Emergency managers have to deal with many unusual problems during a disaster. Floods in particular can cause some very strange situations when things that should remain buried suddenly surface. But a recent flood in Tbilisi, Georgia, posed a problem that, while not necessarily unique, is certainly uncommon.

Torrential rains over the weekend caused a landslide that blocked a local stream. The backed up water eventually broke through, causing the Vere River to overflow and flood the Tbilisi Zoo which is situated along the banks of the river. While many of the animals drowned, a number managed to escape, including a hippopotamus that swam out of its enclosure and was founding eating the leaves of trees in the central Heroes’ Square. Also escaped were a number of bears, lions, tigers, jaguars and wolves. The hippopotamus was recovered after being shot with a tranquilizer dart but a number of the other animals were reportedly shot by police. In all, four lions, three tigers and two jaguars were either drowned or shot while four lions, three tigers, and one jaguar are still missing.

This poses an interesting problem for responders. While no one disputes the need to shoot an animal if it is attacking, how do you balance the competing interests of public safety and the need to recover as many animals as possible? Do you impose a shoot-on-site order? What happens if the animal is not threatening but is hampering rescue efforts by its presence in the area? What message do you send the public?

It’s an interesting problem. Have you checked your zoo’s emergency plans lately?

Disaster Movies as Teaching Tools

Posted on June 5, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

By now you’ve probably heard about the new disaster movie, San Andreas, which is looking like a box office smash. I haven’t seen it yet, but my son has and he said he had a good laugh. I’m afraid he’s picked up some of my bad habits: I tend to laugh at rather inappropriate parts of disaster movies, which is why none of my friends invite me to see one. I can’t help it. Some of the situations are so implausible and the science behind them is usually sadly lacking.

Unfortunately, as much as I giggle at disaster movies there are those who take them way too seriously and actually believe the nonsense presented on the screen. So I was very impressed by my colleagues at the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management turning this around by using the movie as an opportunity to engage the public.

SFDEM hosted a special screening of the movie recently and followed it up with a question and answer session from a panel of experts. The group did more than just debunk some of the more glaring scientific howlers in the movie, though. They used elements of the film to highlight positive lessons on earthquake preparedness such as:

The use of “Duck, cover, and hold”
Family reunification plans and out of area contacts
Prior training in first aid
Tsunami warning signs

The screening was a success, by all accounts and, more importantly, garnered a fair bit of media coverage, extending the reach of the message. By being proactive instead of waiting for media or public enquiries, SFDEM reached a lot of people with a message that was both reassuring and emphasized the importance of preparedness. SFDEM probably just saved a lot of lives in the next earthquake – and had fun doing it!

Terrorism Theater: The Public Is Not The Threat

Posted on May 27, 2015November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

If you’ve been reading my blog for any length of time, you’ll know I have very little patience with what security technologist Bruce Schneier calls “terrorism theater”. Terrorism theater is creating security safeguards that do little more than make the public feel safer and cover someone’s backside while providing very little real benefit. This costs us millions each year and diverts our efforts from areas where we truly do need safeguards. The epitome of terrorism theater is airport security.

Two incidents in today’s news provide examples of this craziness. A Spirit Airlines flight attendant is in hot water after having pictures taken of her posing sitting in the well of a jet engine in front of the turbine blades and posting them to Facebook. The problem? The tarmac area is restricted and it’s unclear if she and the photographer had the necessary clearance to be there. It’s also a pretty dumb idea to sit in front of an engine of a plane that’s in the process of boarding. It's even dumber to post pictures on your Facebook page that have the potential to get you fired, but these are secondary issues.

The second incident is more serious. Three baggage handlers at Oakland International Airport have been arrested for using their access badges to move suitcases full of marijuana from their unsecured work area into the post-screening area and passing them to couriers who then boarded outbound aircraft. Airport authorities acknowledge that while passengers and flight crews are screened, there are thousands of employees across the country who can approach an aircraft with unscreened bags.

Part of risk analysis is anticipating foreseeable threats. The idea that a terrorist could gain access to an aircraft by infiltrating ground crews or concessionaires certainly falls into this category, yet this issue has not been addressed with the same vigor as passenger screening. Oakland has implemented bag limitations for workers and stepped up video surveillance and random screening over the past few years but these measures didn’t seem to deter the three baggage handlers.

It’s too easy to say that screening all workers at an airport is an impossible task. But we said the same about screening passengers and baggage, yet we’re doing it daily. It’s been fourteen years since September 11^th and the fact that we have not anticipated and solved this problem is unconscionable. We need to move beyond considering the public as the main threat and cease being complacent about the people and areas behind the security barriers. We need to stop thinking about the last attack and focus on system vulnerabilities, wherever they may be. To do otherwise borders on the criminal.