Terror Watch: The Flip Side of the NIE
630794
A new report fueled jitters of a fresh Al Qaeda attack on America. But the document also shows how little intelligence officials really know about the state of terrorist threats.
523655
Recent upsurge in attacks has parallels, and differences, with past insurgencies.
291654
Martin Rees is a new breed of doomsayer. He doesnât just move the hands of an imaginary and inscrutable clock, he offers to bet on disaster.
442385
"The event is best viewed as A.Q.I.-related, rather than A.Q.I.-directed."  ' Investigators examining the bungled terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow six months ago believe the plotters had a link to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which would make the attacks the first that the group has ... via Sweetness &amp; Light
289303
(InfoWorld) - The Department of Homeland Securityâs Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) raised a few eyebrows in late November when it sent a warning out to U.S. banks and financial institutions about a possible cyber attack by Islamic militants. The alert, dated Nov. 30, was triggered by a posting on what the DHS considered an Islamic jihadi Web site calling for hackers to attack U.S. financial and banking Web sites, apparently to protest the detention of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, the warning was heavily qualified, with DHS calling the threat âmore aspirational than operational.â Financial firms downplayed the danger, too. One security executive at a major brokerage told InfoWorld that the warning was a ânon-event.â But could repeated warnings about such non-events eventually make critical infrastructure owners deaf to DHSâs warnings? InfoWorld Senior Editor Paul F. Roberts recently chatted with John Carlson, senior director of security and risk Assessment at BITS, a financial-services industry consortium focused on security, fraud, and risk management, about the DHS warning and state of the public-private partnership on cybersecurity. InfoWorld: Iâm guessing that your members received the US-CERT warning about the cyber terrorist attack? John Carlson: There were two messages sent: the first was [Nov. 30]; then a second revision came out [Dec. 1]. The gist of it was that these reports were not corroborated. IW: What was the reaction of BITS members to the warning? JC: Our members have an âall hazardsâ approach to business-continuity planning. Theyâve got well-developed approaches that have been bolstered since 9/11. In response to new regulatory requirements, firms have done a lot to improve backup, theyâve done tests with the various exchanges. Theyâre also working in closer harmony with the federal government to share information on threats and vulnerabilities. I think thereâs a spirit of appreciation that the government is willing to share information with the financial services industry. The firms take that information into account in responding and activating their business continuity plans. IW: How do your members apply information like this that comes from DHS? JC: Iâm not sure I can give a blanket answer. Each firm has its own mechanisms for gathering information. Risk-management professionals at these firms read the paper and understand the military conflicts and theyâre mindful of that. They take it into account when they have employees traveling. Theyâll monitor where they are. With the [bird flu] pandemic issue, firms were monitoring that closely and trying to figure out what impact it would have on their organizations. IW: Is there a danger from these warnings of creating a âBoy Who Cried Wolfâ situation, where firms begin to disregard the warnings? JC: Thereâs always a concern about the crying-wolf syndrome. But our firms appreciate getting the information even if itâs not corroborated. A continuous flow of information helps build trust between the private and public sectors. IW: Was this warning about the jihadist threat something that your members see all the time, or was this an unusual kind of warning from DHS? JC: I think the warning came across the transom at a high level [saying] âpay attention to this.â So it was different from what we normally get. Weâre getting a steady stream of information on threats and vulnerabilities and a range of things. For example, if thereâs a known virus thatâs being perpetrated in [the United States] or against a financial institution. Weâre also getting information on political changes around the world. IW: Do you think DHS has its arms around the cybersecurity problem? JC: My personal opinion is that the government has some capabilities, but not all capabilities. In general, our firms would like more information, but there are many reasons why if (the government) has the information they donât provide it. But itâs a touchy question. People have lots of different views. Â  IW: Do you feel like your members are getting all the information they need? JC: Thereâs some filtering, but I donât have information to compare or validate what the filter is. We talk about issues through coordinating councils that meet quarterly. Itâs a two way conversation.Â
490305
Forget the Patriot Act and overactive spooks. It&#39;s your TV that could have the Feds knocking at your door. Chris van Rossman earlier this month learned this lesson when Air Force staffers, a policeman and
400122
It's possible to work out effective countermeasures if your enemy sticks with specific tactics. But if your foe is a terrorist with the innate ability to think and adapt, things get a little more tricky.
379494
A glance at terror attacks believed linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network.
712112
At first glance, it might seem like the simple extension of a standard tool in the fight against the bad guys. But in fact, wiretapping Internet phones to monitor criminals and terrorists is
361670
With officers like these on the beat, we might feel safe. But they're not targeting the dangerous criminals now terrorising our streets. The simulated shoot-out was part of training to deal with biological or chemical terrorist threats.  (c) 2006 Daily Mirror.
229547
Why surveillance is rampant in the UK and who is watching what you do
74655
(InfoWorld) - Since terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, the government has begun a robust, and oft-criticized, electronic-surveillance program, but other IT-related security projects designed to thwart terrorism have made little progress. Better cybersecurity leadership, more cargo scanning on airplanes and ships and interoperable communications networks for emergency response agencies have all developed slowly. In some cases, fights in Congress have slowed progress, or the U.S. government has focused on other priorities. In other cases, the cost of IT projects has been an issue. The fifth anniversary of the attacks will focus attention as much on what has not been accomplished to protect the U.S. from future attacks as on what has been, chiefly the surveillance system. In recent months, civil liberties groups have protested the shadowy electronic-surveillance program run by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), with alleged cooperation from large telecommunications carriers. U.S. President George Bush has defended the program as necessary and legal, even as critics point out the NSA is spying on U.S. residents without court orders. Critics say the emphasis on surveillance instead of other technology has led to an invasion of innocent people's privacy and has not improved the nationâs security. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), leading a lawsuit against AT&T Inc. for its alleged participation in the NSA surveillance program, says some U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have complained about the quality of the leads generated by the program. âItâs like, âOh great, more calls to Pizza Hut,ââ said Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney. âThis many may not help us connect the dots -- it may just be creating more dots.â But there hasnât been a major outcry about the NSA program from U.S. residents, with a common attitude being that innocent people should have nothing to hide. âI worry that a lot of people are speaking out of fear,â Bankston said. âYou wouldnât want government cameras installed in your bedroom or your bathroom, not because youâre doing anything wrong there, but because there are areas of our lives that should be private.â The biggest change since Sept. 11 is this culture of surveillance, added Jim Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group focused on civil liberties online. Congressâ quick passage of the Patriot Act following Sept. 11 generated huge debates about its expansion of law enforcement powers, but the NSA program happened without congressional approval, he said. âAll the ink that was spilled over the Patriot Act is irrelevant â¦ if the president says heâll do what he wants,â Dempsey added. Combined with technology advances in areas such as storage, location awareness and facial recognition, these expanded government powers create âa pretty wholesale assault on privacy.â The Bush administration has defended its tactics, with the president saying this month that the governmentâs counterterrorism efforts have subverted a number of plots since 9/11, including an anthrax attack and an airplane hijacking plan. The NSA surveillance program âhelps protect Americans,â Bush said in a speech Thursday. He called on Congress to derail court challenges to the NSA program by passing laws approving the program. âIf an al Qaeda commander is calling the United States, we need to know why theyâre calling,â he said. In three other IT-related areas, progress has been slow. Cybersecurity IT security groups have called for greater U.S. government emphasis on cybersecurity. In July 2005, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff announced plans to create a high-level position, assistant secretary for cybersecurity, but that position remains unfilled, despite pressure from IT groups. In addition, the DHS has never scored above an "F" in the federal government's annual computer security assessment. Another agency that has consistently pulled in "Fs" is the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which was roiled earlier this year following a massive data breach. Part of the problem is that the government is simply not as interested as it should be in paying for online defense, according to Marcus Sachs, a former Bush administration advisor on Internet security. "It's kind of hard to convince the Congress to continue to fund cybersecurity efforts when the entire nation is shaking in its boots over chemical weapons and dirty bombs," said Sachs, who now works for SRI International, a research organization in Menlo Park, California. "We've not had any attributable cyberstuff that you could trace back to terrorism ... it's hard to make a case as to why we need to be worried about it." Those kinds of attacks may still come, said O. Sami Saydjari, founder and president of Cyber Defense Agency LLC, an IT security research and consulting firm in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin. Just one massive cyberattack would boost U.S. cyberdefense spending, but a major attack could cost U.S. businesses up to US$1 trillion, he said. The technology to sufficiently harden U.S. cyberdefenses largely exists, but the government needs to create a program to improve the nationâs cybersecurity infrastructure, Saydjari said. âWaiting until we have these attacks is not the time to develop that program,â he added. âEvery year, the [cyber] attacks are better.â Communications interoperability for emergency response agencies Security experts, including the 9/11 Commission, have requested additional radio spectrum so that emergency response agencies can better communicate with each other. During the Sept. 11 attacks, some emergency responders found that their communication systems did not interoperate. More radio spectrum is on the way, but not until February 2009, the deadline Congress set for television stations to vacate the spectrum and move to all digital broadcasts. During a lengthy congressional debate over the digital TV transition, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, tried to move up the transition date, arguing emergency responders need the spectrum as soon as possible. But congressional concerns over the timing of commercial auctions for part of the freed spectrum led to the later date. If the auctions were too soon, the spectrum might not sell for the $10 billion Congress has budgeted, opponents of an earlier deadline said. Meanwhile, some emergency response agencies are working with each other to improve interoperability, but those efforts are happening only in âpocketsâ of the U.S., said Steven Jones, executive director of the First Response Coalition, a group advocating for interoperable emergency communications. âThereâs no national strategy to coordinate all these efforts,â Jones said. âNationally speaking, I donât know that weâre better off than we were five years ago.â Cargo scanning Hobbled by high costs and slow machines, airlines and cargo ships scan only a fraction of the baggage they carry, leaving their passengers at risk of hidden explosives and other weapons, critics say. Most of the 6 billion pounds of cargo shipped on passenger airlines every year is commercial cargo, not checked baggage, and most of those crates and cartons are never scanned, exposing passengers to risk, according to U.S. Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. The problem is even greater on commercial shipping venues, with unscanned cargo rolling into the U.S. every year aboard 11.2 million trucks, 2.2 million rail cars and 51,000 cargo ships, according to the DHS. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which operates airport security systems, says it faces a dilemma of choosing between inexpensive but inaccurate machines and expensive, high-quality machines. Airport workers now scan baggage with two types of systems. Explosive trace detection machines are affordable -- they're the size of a laser printer and cost a few thousand dollars -- but rely on slow and error-prone human workers to collect test samples. In contrast, explosive detection system machines can process up to 500 bags per hour but weigh as much as 17,000 pounds and cost up to $1 million. And airports must invest much more money to insert those machines into their existing baggage conveyor belts to speed the process. Still, officials with the Bush administration insist they've made significant progress in fighting terrorism over the last five years. A "network" of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, improved terrorist databases and international cooperation have successfully thwarted multiple terrorist plots, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a speech Thursday. "If there is one thing that all Americans will be thinking and saying when we mark a terrible anniversary on Monday, it will be the simple phrase, 'never again,'" he said. "And the goal of 'never again' cannot be achieved by the federal government alone, by any state government alone, or by any local police force alone. Our network of prevention is instead the key to protecting the American people."
238295
Also: Searching passengers' faces for subtle cues to terror. Read these stories and more from around the Web on News.com Extra.
1304
Not worth a tin full of beans Analysis A significant and noticeable part of the US and European academy of terrorism studies is like a shark. If it stops swimming forward, it dies. This has two consequences: a drive to publish or perish which, in turn, motivates it to creep onto past battlefields, assessing which bodies can be ignored for the sake of renewing mythologies; or new terror analyses that purport to show Byzantine networks and capabilities.â¦
546298
The next terrorist threat may come from the deep. In recent years, several homeland security alerts have focused on the danger of scuba-equipped terrorists targeting docked Navy vessels or ocean-side nuclear plants. Now the U.S. military is quietly developing a new generation of underwater weaponry.
739215
William Langewiesche's new book on proliferation is quite scary. The good news is that he gets most of it wrong.
599939
"The Paranoia Switch" (Farrar, Straus &amp; Giroux, 202 pages. $26), by Martha Stout: Opponents of the Bush administration have long accused the government of trafficking in fear &#151; using terror alerts, for example, to distract the public and prevent citizens from questioning authority.