Security Planning and Assessment - Essay Example

Security Planning and Assessment 1. The most important aspect of security assessment and planning is its sustainability. According to the EDAW (1999), the welfare of the population depends upon the “quality of the environment and the availability of resources. The idea of sustainable planning in terms of the security will help us ensure that the kind of safe environment we are trying to reach at present will be the kind of safe environment the the future generation will have. Apart from other aspects of security assessment and planning such as being at the cutting edge of technical, social, medical, cultural and educational advancements, its sustainability remain the “driving force” to which the aim for the future will be patterned after. One specific example of sustainable planning is the requirement that programs, policies, practices and processes are integrated across levels of authority—that is, everyone should know about it. According to EDAW (1999): “Sustainable planning seeks creative ways to interject values and principles of sustainable development into the decision-making process....” This means that other specific aspects such as assessment, evaluation and decision-making will not work as efficient, or maybe affected adversely if it is not based on sustainability. 2. One of the lingering concerns of U.S. Department of Homeland Security is whether or not the department should assume protection duties for private-sector critical infrastructure facilities (which includes cargo terminals, utility plants, food stocks, and laboratories). The Department already has a plan on protecting even private infrastructure. According to the Homeland Security Website (n.d.): “The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and supporting Sector-Specific Plans (SSPs) provide a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) protection roles and responsibilities for federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector security partners. The NIPP sets national priorities, goals, and requirements for effective distribution of funding and resources which will help ensure that our government, economy, and public services continue in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster. The plan is based on the following: Strong public-private partnerships which will foster relationships and facilitate coordination within and across CI/KR sectors. Robust multi-directional information sharing which will enhance the ability to assess risks, make prudent security investments, and take protective action. Risk management framework establishing processes for combining consequence, vulnerability, and threat information to produce a comprehensive, systematic, and rational assessment of national or sector risk. ( from the Homeland Security Website, n.d.). The government should indeed play a part in protecting even private-sector infrastructures, as long as it does not interfere with the internal system. I think that, as long as the principles of this branch of the government is in-line with the principles of the private sector, misunderstandings due to conflict of interests will not arise. We cannot ensure that the private security agencies can adequately meet the needs of the company, especially if most of its activities require public interaction—which is the concern of the Department of Homeland Security. The Department should indeed assume protection duties, as long as it does not impair the private sectors internal system. 3. If I am a security manager of a nuclear power plant, and I have observed that my security officers and planners have little regard for each other, I will address the matter immediately—so as not to risk the security of the power plant. Being a security manager, and having to re conciliate different views and opinions from security officers and security planners will not be easy. First, I would have to address the problem: Why do both groups have little regard for each other? One possible answer is that, they may not realize that their duties are complementary and that one would only function better if in collaboration with the other. To build camaraderie, therefore, specific duties that should be done in a particular period of time must include both groups. They should be clearly aware of the cooperation they need in order to finish a task. Regular meetings including both groups can also be conducted in order to know whether both groups works efficiently together, or if one group has some matters to bring up, which might be against the other. Meetings like these which are well-facilitated will help me, as the security manager, find ways to reconcile the concerns of both groups, and therefore design specific activities or assign tasks that will build camaraderie between them. 4. Physical assaults, verbal harassments and other types of violent acts committed in the workplace are among the behaviors that result to what we call workplace violence. Workplace violence is one of the major problems in the United States. It has been labeled as a “National Epidemic” by the Centers for Disease Control, giving us a hint of how pervasive it has become (Workplace Violence Headquarters, n.d.). The following figures, which are from the US Department of Justice, describes the magnitude of the phenomenon (as cited in the Workplace Violence HQ, n.d.): *The “fastest growing category of murder” in the US is workplace homicide, and it has become the leading cause of on-the-job death for females and second leading cause for the males. *There are about 2 million victims of physical assault in the workplace per year. *Incidents of verbal violence (threat, intimidations and harassment) are three times more often than incidents of physical violence. *There is about one individual out of four who has become a victim of workplace violence each year (which will cost $13.5 billion for medical expenses per year). Some factors may either cause or contribute to workplace violence. Drawing from the Workplace Violence HQ's (n.d.) “Formula for Workplace Violence: Postal”, contributing factors have been identified: Profile [of the employee] – some employees may have previous history of violence, emotional problems, career, career frustration, antagonistic relationships with others or some type of obsession. Observable Warning Signs – are defined as the newly acquired negative traits of some of the employees which might be exemplified by violent, threatening, and “strange” behaviors, and/or by emotional, performance, and interpersonal problems. Shotgun – or the ability of some employees to access weapons. Triggering Events – happenings in the workplace that might trigger rage from the employees and bosses alike. This might be job-related (being fired/suspend and criticized), personal (financial, court actions, or crises such as death in the family). According to the Workplace Violence HQ (n.d.), identifying these factors will help one predict possible workplace violence. With the figures given earlier, we cannot afford to take the matter for granted. Workplace violence can actually be reduced through training programs that will ensure camaraderie and even anger management seminars. Private security organizations may help controlling existing misunderstandings (or play part in managing riots), but it will not address the key problem. The only way to reduce workplace violence is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Hiring private security organizations beforehand may only aggravate violent tendencies since appearances of authoritative figures are known to cause tensions. The solution lies in identifying the way the employees interact with their co-employees, not with the rules laid down by the security personnels. 5. The aviation security exists with the aim of regulating or preventing both criminal and illegal activities in airports and on aircrafts. Such activities include destruction of aircrafts, bombing, hijacking, passenger assaults, etc. According to Judy Rumerman, aviation security is regarded today as one of the top priorities of the Federal Government, the international air community, and even the travelers (Aviation Security Website, n.d.). This sector of national security has been through many changes and even challenges, and it can be clearly seen in its history. In May 1930, the first hijacking happened. The Peruvian revolutionaries took over a Pan American mail plane with the purpose of spreading their propaganda through leaflets that they dropped (Aviation Security Website, n.d.). The next hijacking happened in 1947, and eleven years after, 23 hijackings were reported, which were mostly done by Europeans who were then seeking political asylums (Aviation Security Website, n.d.). In November 1, 1955, a man named Jack Graham planted a bomb in his mother's luggage—killing 44 people which were then on-board the Denver-bound plane. And when Fidel Castro ruled over Cuba in 1959, the number of hi-jacking began to grow (Aviation Security Website, n.d.) . But only 1963 did the government regarded the matter as fatal and did something about it. The Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, which was also known as the Tokyo Convention had been formulated. It required the immediate return of the hijacked planes and hostage passengers (Aviation Security Website, n.d.). 50 nations, including the US signed the Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague Convention) in December 1970. The Convention named hijacking as a criminal act (Aviation Security Website, n.d.). In January of 1969, the Task Force on the Deterrence of Air Piracy was created. The force, which was created by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) formulated a “profile” of hijackers. Eastern Airlines began implementing it in October, and then the move was followed by four more airlines. Such earlier agreements were strengthened when the 1971 Montreal Convention was implemented in 1973 (Aviation Security Website, n.d.). It was in 1974 when the airline security was tightened, and an anti-hijacking bill, which sanctioned the universal screening of passengers, was signed. The FAA financed studies and researches on new bomb and weapon-detecting equipments in the 90's. This is to upgrade the efficiency of screening and to improve aviation security. In 1997, funds for additional airport security personnel were also funded by the FAA. However, despite the efforts, the airport security had also been subject to criticisms by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG stated that the FAA is slow in terms of limiting unauthorized access to secluded areas in airports. Another criticism by the OIG was in 2000, when the issuance of airport identification were done without sufficient checks. Today, we can say that the aviation security is more strict in implementing security systems—particularly passenger screening. Passengers were screened many times before they can enter the aircraft. Security among luggage had also been heightened since bomb-makers now are more innovative and have invented a liquid form of a bomb component that can be easily slipped into a hand carry. Not only was this triggered by the 9/11 attack, but by the realization of the need to continuously provide maximum security for travelers. However, it seems, that security personnels stereotype more today than before. Since they have an almost complete hijacker or terrorist “profile”, they tend to discriminate Arab or Palestinian-looking passengers and treat them differently—examining them more thoroughly than other passengers. There's still room for improvement in this aspect. Their intelligence unit should be the one to do background checks and identifications of the hijackers, not just the security personnel who discriminate and judge based on appearance only. References Aviation Security Website (no date). Retrieved January 7, 2008 at EDAW, (1999). Sustainable Planning: a multi-service assessment. Feasibility Study for Implementing Sustainable Development Concepts and Principles into the Army,Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Land and Facilities Planning Processes and Programs. Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Washington pp. 40-47 Homeland Security Website (no date). National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Retrieved January 8, 2008 at: Homeland Security: The White house (no date). National Strategy for Homeland Security. Retrieved January 8, 2008 at: Workplace Violence Headquarters: The resource for anger management, violence and sexual harassment (no date). Retrieved January 7, 2008 at Read More