Category: Weblogs

Do you really see me?

Fire+logo
In his song What Made America Famous? Harry Chapin tells the story of a small town feud between the local volunteer fire department and

The kind of kids that long since drove our parents to despair.
We were lazy long hairs dropping out, lost confused, and copping out.
Convinced our futures were in doubt and trying not to care

The "hippies" shared a rundown slum with black welfare cases and were shadowed by the police wherever they went. In retaliation, they paint a swastika on the fire house door.

Things change, however, when the building catches fire. The firefighters are initially reluctant to respond but one of them threatens to go alone and shames the others into responding. In the course of the fire he rescues the narrator of the song, his girlfriend and two children who are trapped on a ledge. But he goes further: he opens his home to the victims of the fire.

We spent the rest of that night in the home of a man I'd never known before.
It's funny when you get that close, it's kind of hard to hate.

The identification of outsiders through visual cues is bred into us from prehistoric times. It was a defensive mechanism used to identify potential threats, i.e. people who were not members of our tribe. But in our multi-cultural society, we may well have outgrown the need to classify people by their differences from us. It’s easy to hate “those people” but it’s hard to hate someone you have taken the time to know. There is a reason that Zulu warriors greeted each other with the phrase, “I see you.” Differences don't seem important when you're faced with disaster.

As someone who spent years in private security in the US and abroad and has dealt with national security issues, I’ve seen the dark side of human nature. But the one thing we see over and over in disasters is the willingness of ordinary people to extend a helping hand to total strangers. And it’s not just those who have a responsibility to help, like the firefighters in Chapin’s song. In the aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake, the biggest jerk on our block knocked on every door to ask if everyone was alright and if they needed any help. He even refueled the patrol car of the local cop who was constantly writing him parking tickets.

Chapin’s narrator undergoes a change because of his experience in the fire and the song ends with him dreaming of a world where everyone works together to build a better country. It's a dream many of should keep in mind in these troubled times.

I had the kind of a dream that maybe they're still trying to teach in school.
Of the America that made America famous… and
Of the people who just might understand
That how together, yes we can
Create a country better than
The one we have made of this land,

Is It Time for Emergency Managers to Think Globally?

Refugees
Emergency managers tend to focus inwards on our communities, as opposed to homeland security which is fixed on external threats outside the country. Our area of interest is on specific threats that directly affect the populations we serve and larger issues of national security are left primarily to the Federal government. But ultimately we deal in risk and one of the key factors in determining risk is social vulnerability. If we accept this, we really cannot afford to ignore the increased global connectedness of the modern world.

A scenario I read recently highlights how seemingly disparate events can combine to create catastrophic results. In this scenario, BRITEXT leads to additional defections from the European Union, weakening the EU’s ability to impose economic sanctions. At the same time, the election of Donald Trump in the United States leads to a weakening of NATO as the US becomes increasingly isolationist. The weak economic sanctions coupled with reduced NATO military deterrence encourages Russia to seize additional territory in border states, leading to armed conflict.

Clearly, this scenario has little bearing on day to day emergency management. However, it does demonstrate how things are connected and these connections can have an impact on social vulnerability. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, has led to a net increase in jobs for the country as a whole but has led to a loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, increasing unemployment and lowering wages in states whose economy are based on manufacturing. Increased poverty means increased vulnerability to disasters and reduced tax revenue to invest in preparedness. The conflict in the Middle East has produced the largest movement of displaced people since World War II. A large number of those refugees can be absorbed into the United States but since immigrants tend to cluster in communities, they will affect local demographics and present emergency managers with challenges related to cultural differences and languages. As both these examples show, the overall impact of an event on the country as a whole may not be the same as that on a local community.

I am not suggesting we spend our time playing useless “what-if” games or constructing doomsday scenarios. What I am suggesting is that we turn our focus outwards enough to be able to recognize events that could have the potential to affect social vulnerability within our communities and to begin developing strategies for dealing with them. This means thinking beyond day to day hazards to think both globally and long range, two things that, unfortunately, we have not done well at any level of government.

One of the leading causes of power outages may be hiding in your backyard!

Squirrel_power_line
I’m just back from a family vacation and getting caught up. Part of my routine is to skim the newspapers that I missed while I was gone. I’m not so much looking for news as I am for some of the more interesting articles, such as the one that caught my eye today. It seems that Kenya suffered a nationwide blackout recently that lasted more than three hours (some sections of the country were still without power the following day). The blackout disrupted businesses and Internet service for most of the country. The cause? A Vervet monkey came into contact with a transformer, which tripped off and began a cascading outage. The monkey survived.

As you can imagine, I got a good laugh out of it and thought, “What a unique problem.” That is, until I did a quick bit of research and found that one of the leading causes of power outages in the United States is animal contact, primarily squirrels. In a 2013 article in the New York Times Sunday Review, author Jon Mooallem catalogued some 50 outages in 24 states over a period of just three months. And, remember, these were just the outages that were big enough to make the news.

The effects of these animal contacts were not confined to simple outages. Mooallem notes two instances in 1987 and 1994 when squirrel contacts shut down the Nasdaq. In 2013, a squirrel chewing into high voltage lines near a water treatment plant in Tampa caused authorities to issue a boil water order lasting 37 hours. A flaming squirrel carcass falling from a utility pole started a 2-acre grass fire near Tulsa, OK the same year. The cost is not cheap either: some utilities estimate that as much as 20% of all outages may be caused by animal contact and a 2005 California study estimated that animal contacts cost the state between $30 to $317 million each year.

Utilities are not being idle. They have been experimenting with physical barriers, fake owls, and spraying utility poles with fox urine. But if you’ve ever owned a bird feeder, you know how hard it is to keep a determined squirrel out. Success has been limited so far. In one ironic incident, a hawk attacked one of the fake owls and caused a substation outage.

So the next time you’re feeling smug, remember that the infrastructure we rely on so heavily is also extremely brittle. It doesn’t take much to cause problems. A one-pound bundle of fur and teeth may be all it takes to ruin your day. Preparedness for power outages is always a good thing.

When disaster strikes, who is accountable?

Fukushima
Last February Japanese prosecutors charged three former executives responsible for the Fukishima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station with criminal negligence related to the reactor meltdown following the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. The men are accused of failing to take measures that would have protected the plant from damage. This action raises an interesting question about who bears responsibility for failing to protect the public.

Contrast the Japanese action with the criminal charges stemming from last year’s Santa Barbara oil spill. In March prosecutors indicted Plains All American Pipeline and a single employee on multiple charges related to the oil spill. Four of the charges leveled at the company are felonies for spilling oil into state waters. The remainder, including those against the employee, are misdemeanors related to failure to report the spill in a timely manner. The company could face fines up to $2.8 million if convicted of all counts. The employee is looking at up to three years in prison.

Our tendency in the United States is to treat disaster events as civil rather than criminal actions. Companies are sued in civil court and must pay damages. It is rare that companies are charged criminally and even more unusual to see charges brought against individuals. This is changing somewhat as evidenced by the charges brought against one city and two state employees in the Flint, Michigan water crisis and the current Federal criminal investigation related to the Gold King Mine disaster in Colorado.

But cases like Flint and the Gold King Mine involve public agencies not corporations. In the US corporations are treated as individuals in terms of liability. The responsibility is fixed on the corporation as a whole rather than on the officers who made the decisions that may have precipitated a crisis. In the case of the Deep Water Horizon spill, only four individuals were criminally charged. Two of those cases were misdemeanors related to obstructing the investigation. Only two low level employees faced manslaughter charges directly related to the blow out. They eventually pled guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges. BP plead guilty to manslaughter charges and paid $4 billion in fines and penalties.

The corporate system exists precisely to shield individuals from personal liability in order to protect their personal assets in a civil suit. But should these protections be extended to absolve them from criminal responsibility? Is a fine that is ultimately paid by the customers and shareholders sufficient to redress criminal negligence? Maybe it’s time we started to rethink this issue.

Focus Versus Balance: A Tail From The Dog Park

IMG_20160111_083344826Toby arrives towards the end of our morning at the dog park as part of a dog walker’s pack. What makes him special is his love affair with a big red ball. Toby heads directly to it and proceeds to run it around the park with a skill that would rival a soccer pro. If the ball is outside the park and one of us tosses it in, the sound of the ball hitting the dirt is enough to grab Toby’s attention from anywhere in the park.

But Toby’s game, while admirable and amusing to those who watch him, had a distinct downside. By being so focused on the ball, Toby failed to socialize with the other members of his pack. In the absence of the ball, he didn’t really know how to interact with the other dogs and got into trouble from time to time. There was only one solution: Toby had to go cold turkey. At the request of his walker, we stopped tossing Toby the ball and no longer encouraged his play. It took a few weeks but Toby is now well-adjusted and enjoys playing with other dogs. He still gets to play with his ball but not every time he comes to the park.

Being focused is an admirable quality and can be important to success. But anything taken to extreme is not healthy. Many of us focus heavily on our jobs or other aspects of our life without realizing that doing so closes us off from personal interactions. And in the long run, those interactions are what gives meaning to our lives. This is why achieving balance in life is so important. If you’re too busy chasing that big red ball, you may be missing out on the social interactions that make life worth living.

 

United Flight Attendants Fired Over Security Concerns Reinstated

United tail imageAbout a year ago I wrote about an incident on a United flight that led to the termination of thirteen flight attendants (See Disagreement Over Security Grounds for Termination? A Case Study). The problem began when crew members found graffiti near an engine compartment that was potentially threatening. Passengers were held from boarding while ground crew checked the engine compartment. When nothing was found, the captain of the flight assumed it had been a bit of harmless ground crew graffiti and ordered the flight boarded. The flight attendants objected and demanded that the entire aircraft be searched to be sure it was safe or that a new aircraft be provided. The inflight supervisor ordered the flight attendants to begin boarding. The flight attendants refused and the flight was canceled. Following a disciplinary hearing, all thirteen flight attendants were fired based on United’s rule that disobeying a direct order is grounds for dismissal.

The flight attendants filed a federal whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yesterday, the flight attendants and United issued a joint statement saying that they had reached a confidential resolution and that all thirteen flight attendants would be rehired. No other terms of the agreement were disclosed. United’s senior vice president for inflight services commented, “We respect the right of our employees to raise concerns in good faith about the safety and security of our operations and encourage them to do so.”

As I said at the time, this incident is an interesting case study in decision making. On the one hand you have a potential risk to safety while on the other you have corporate pressure to make sure that flight departs. “Safety first” is good in theory but difficult to apply in reality when you need to balance competing interests. In this case, everything hinged on the assessment of the credibility of the threat. The supervisory team felt it was not credible and the flight attendants felt it was.

However, I find myself a bit irritated by the comments of United’s vice president. If United truly encouraged the reporting of security concerns, it would seem to follow that they would not have ignored the potential threat and ordered the attendants back to work. And they certainly wouldn’t have fired the thirteen employees. Instead, one would have expected some attempt to mediate between the competing interests of employee concern and schedule demands.

Here’s the interesting thing: what difference would it have made? Conducting a safety check might have led to a lengthy delay and possible cancellation of the flight. But having the entire cabin crew walk off the job led to a cancellation of the flight anyway. In the end, the flight attendants’ actions in raising concerns have been validated and United has suffered a certain amount of embarrassment.

So if you were in the position of the United management team, how would you have resolved this situation? If you were a passenger scheduled on that flight, would you feel the same way?

Earthquake early warning? There’s an app for that…

USGS fault lines
For those of us who live in earthquake country, the ability to provide early warning has always been a priority. The California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) was established in 2000 with this goal in mind and is working to cover the entire state with a system of interlinked seismic and geodetic stations. The US Geological Survey envisions eventually including low cost sensors in homes, businesses, and schools, all with the goal of gathering timely data and issuing emergency warnings.

But what if this goal could be furthered in way that provided millions of sensors at little cost? As they say, “There’s an app for that.”

Scientists at UC Berkeley have just released an application for Android phones called MyShake that uses crowd sourcing to gather information about earthquakes. The application runs in the background, using very little power, in a way similar to popular exercise applications. It uses a profile-recognition system that allows it to distinguish between normal activity and an earthquake, so data is only shared if the event matches the profile. When an earthquake occurs, the application detects it using the accelerometer in the smart phone and transmits the data and location anonymously to a cloud server. Within the cloud server, the data is aggregated with data from other devices and used to determine the magnitude of the seismic event.

While the application is currently only a data-capturing tool, the Berkeley team believes that application can be refined to send out alerts seconds or minutes ahead of dangerous shaking. The application is intended to supplement, not replace, the work being done by CISN but offers the advantage of much faster processing and notification. It would prove particularly beneficial in locations that do not have the sophisticated seismic network that California has.
The application has been tested with a small number of users and has performed well and researchers are now seeking to expand the number of users. You can get more information and download the app at http://myshake.berkeley.edu/.

Revealing Security Flaws Raises Ethical Issues

Camera
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?

Terrorist5“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?

Insurance
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.