Paris Terror Attack and Lessons Learned

            “Je suis Charlie.” The phrase, which simply means "I am Charlie", has caught on as the slogan to show solidarity in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists. 

            By now, you’ve seen the news and coverage about the brutal terror attacks in Paris. When I was in law enforcement, it was common after a tragedy to review what had happened, especially if it involved an officer safety issue, and look for lessons that could be learned so future police officers in that situation would respond differently and survive the incident. 

            So what lessons can be learned from the events in Paris? To get the most benefit, take a very broad approach, looking for general ideas to prevent a similar tragedy, not just duplicate this exact case, as every situation will be a little different.

            First, these suspects were known to have terrorist ties and were on a no-fly list. Once persons are identified as having terrorist ties, authorities should monitor what they are up to. Of course, this is an ongoing and challenging issue, but society needs to set some barriers to anyone who promotes violence or has ties with those that do. This same type of issue played out in Australia when one person held multiple hostages. That suspect has allowed into the country for political asylum, but was involved in the murder of a domestic partner, accusations of sex assault in 40 cases and had terrorist ties as well. Unfortunately, most of us have no control over this piece, unless the threats are coming from an internal source.

            Second, take threats seriously. One of the most common security mistakes is that of not taking dangerous situations or threats as seriously as we should. In this case, a police officer was assigned to protect the magazine’s editor after threats were made. However, the police officer was not able to stop the attack. Even if he were armed, it was not enough to match the terrorists, who had rifles. If the threats were taken more seriously, the officer should have been able to monitor the approaches to the building and control access before the terrorists could enter the building. Being able to set up a perimeter, either with cameras or an actual physical presence would have helped create an early deterrent or obstacle for any attack. In this case, the terrorists actually went to the wrong address first, and then were stopped by a locked door until an employee was forced to open it under duress. Early warning would have possibly given time for the would-be victims to escape, hide or barricade themselves behind shelter.

            Third, any group that could be a target of terrorists should focus on building security awareness amongst employees and educate everyone to be on the alert for suspicious activity. Any attack follows a surveillance stage. The surveillance stage is really the best opportunity for security personnel or other employees to identify the pending danger. Persons taking photos or loitering around a target location could easily be gathering intel. Attackers will often try to take pictures of security cameras and their locations, as well as watch security personnel making rounds or conducting patrols. Sometimes, an attacker may call in a bomb threat or other type of threat to see what the response is and help identify how many security personnel may be at the site and get an idea of the response protocols. Other ways that a terrorist may test security is by trying to enter restricted areas or parts of a building that are normally for employees only. 

            Fourth, take action. Once these warning signs or even a combination of some, are seen, it is critical to take some action to thwart or divert an attack. In the case of the Paris attack, the death threats may have been the first warning. If employees or security had noted activity around the premise, it is likely that some of the surveillance stages would have been seen. If that had happened, the next step would have been to increase the presence of armed police or security officers, both visible and plain-clothes, to deal with possible attack.

            Of course, the real challenge is our own internal human nature. It seems to be natural to make excuses for threats and deny that anything bad is really tied to the suspicious activity. And the cost of extra protection measures is another big deterrent. 

            That brings me to the last lesson learned. Every organization should create a plan in advance on how to deal with a variety of security issues, including what the response will be when a threat is received. The plan should include awareness, training and a response component, combining all the above lessons learned. 

            Bon sécurité.

Combining his law enforcement and corporate security experiences plus a love of martial arts, Eric Smith created Business Karate, LLC, a Colorado-based security consulting firm. His new book, Workplace Security Essentials, outlines how any business, school, hospital or organization can master the art of self-defense, reduce losses, avoid liability and build a safer workplace. Visit www.businesskarate.com for more. Follow on Twitter @businesskarate
 

What Are You Afraid Of?

Recently, I came across a survey on the website of a security publication.  The survey asked the readers what their biggest concern was for the coming year.  The vast majority of security professionals had answered that terrorism was their biggest fear.  The poll got me thinking about the real everyday threats facing organizations.  What is the biggest threat ahead in the next year or next few years?

Certainly, terrorism is a very real risk.  There have been numerous attempts across the U.S., as well as attacks carried out overseas.  But is that the most serious or dangerous challenge facing businesses?  The better question might be should terrorism really be the focus of any risk mitigation or protection program?

It terms of probability, companies are much more likely to face crimes, such as robbery, theft or embezzlement.  Of those, embezzlement probably has the highest impact in terms of loss, with some insiders finding ways to steal millions of dollars from employers.  There is also the risk of workplace violence.  Some studies have shown a decrease in workplace violence, events such as active shooters still happen far too often.  Recently, we saw the news of a shooting at a small college campus that left seven dead and several wounded.  Active shooter cases seem to be much more frequent.

Terrorism response by most businesses is fairly limited as well.  Understanding your specific potential of being the target is important, as is training on identifying suspicious activity, such as surveillance.  The best approach for most enterprises is to develop solid business continuity plans and emergency response to survive a wide range of disasters.

Assuming you have disaster planning as part of your protection plan, the focus then shifts to the everyday and most common threats facing the organization. 

Globalization is one risk.  With growing instability in many parts of the world, there are increasing risks.  Supply chains are one critical element.  Social unrest or labor protests can interrupt or stop shipment of key supplies.  Austerity measures in countries like Greece, have led to protests in which transportation workers and drivers have walked off the job or gone on strike.  Truckers and subway workers in France have done the same thing in the past.  As long as there is growing concern over cutbacks and the disparity of wealth, protests such as this will continue. 

Closer to home is the concern over technology.  As a society, we are more and more dependent on technology from emails, texts and document sharing.  Smart phones to desktops, we are surrounded by high tech.  What are the risks from any interruption in service?  Loss of data, malware, denial of service attacks are some examples.  There are risks that are more ordinary as well.  What about the loss of productivity with changes in software or equipment?  Changing procedures, training staff on new ways of doing their jobs, and, the often overlooked, making sure the new processes work as intended, all can create downtime and lost productivity.  The time lost in re-learning basic tasks to use new technology can be a very real factor.

The greatest risks, though, may be in the fundamentals.  Poor leadership, bad customer service and lack of capital are the primary reasons that businesses fail.  Leaders that fail to set good direction or who make poor decisions steer organizations or their departments straight into failure.  This includes bad judgment, such as missing warning signs, changes in the market or perhaps not realizing that the team is not delivering what they need to.

 Every organization has customers and every employee needs to remember that.  The customer may be internal, such as the cleaning crew keeping the office sparkling and sanitary or it may be the cashier interacting face to face with external customers.  All customers, internal or not, have expectations that need to be met.  Failing to do so or doing it with a poor attitude, poor service or in a way that is uncaring will not work for long and will not be tolerated.  Once you’ve lost your customers, you cannot survive.

Lack of customer support and failure to lead effectively will certainly create a lack of capital.  Without resources, there is no ability to remain or regain competitiveness, develop programs to improve operations or even, in some cases, be able to pay employees.

And coming full circle back to terrorism, for those whose role is to provide security or protect the workplace, missing the fundamentals will mean not being able to do your job.  If your biggest fear is terrorism, then keep your focus on the basic day-to-day operations in order to be successful at the ultimate goal.

              

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense.  He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management.  Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces.  To learn more visit http://www.businesskarate.com. 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com. 

Industrial Terrorism - Real Threat or Political Hype?

What do you think of, when you hear the word terrorism?  Most people picture bombings, hijackings, shootings and other acts of violence.  In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as acts or threats of violence to create fear, in order to influence governments or societies.  However, a handful of large corporations have come up with a new definition and are working on special political support to enforce their new version.

This new terrorist is not armed with a bomb, gun or explosives, nor any other type of weapon.  The industrial terrorist uses a camera instead.  Not one laced with explosives or biochemical tools of mass destruction - just a simple, hidden video camera.

The so-called industrial terrorist will infiltrate agricultural corporate operations, directly through the HR department - by applying for a job opening.  The terrorist then secretly videotapes how other employees treat animals in the operations.  This could include dairy farms, feedlots or poultry operations.  The video will be edited to highlight the worst abuses and posted online, usually by a group advocating veganism.

In the past, this would have simply been called an expose or investigative journalism.  Certainly not a form of terrorism.  Now, a handful of large corporations are pushing for legislation to define these undercover videos as industrial terrorism.

There are several real dangers in calling this type of expose, or whistle-blowing, terrorism.

Using the word terrorism for “gotcha” journalism undermines the very real threat that terrorism poses around the world.  Each year, real terrorists with real weapons kill real people.  They don’t just embarrass them with bad videos.  It makes as much sense as calling someone a murderer after they insulted you with some name-calling.

The term industrial terrorism tries to make this issue society’s problem rather than the corporations’ by creating a sense of physical danger to the community and re-directing law enforcement resources to deal with a terrorist threat.

Another potential problem is that these proposed laws may discourage future, legitimate whistleblowers.  An individual who sees a real problem or health risk may be afraid of coming forward with critical information if they risk being labeled a terrorist and prosecuted.  To support their claims, they may want to gather information, including photos or video.

Businesses have a right and obligation to protect themselves from threats.  Their employees, stockholder and customers expect and need that.  The real question is what is the best approach in these types of circumstances?

The first step is to create environments that eliminate any unethical treatment of animals.  We all understand that these agricultural corporations do provide a key source of food.  How that is done is another question.  Make sure that employees are not acting in ways that seem to promote needless violence or poor treatment of animals.  Sound policies and oversight are key to make those changes.

The next step is to conduct screenings on prospective employees.  Even simple background checks to verify past work history, personal references etc should be done to help eliminate anyone trying to get hired under false pretenses.  This should be done regardless of concerns about so-called industrial terrorists.  There have been legitimate concerns that terrorists could target food sources as a way to harm the public.

When negative or bad publicity does come out, instead of trying to shift the blame or demonize those exposing problems, take positive steps to improve public relations.  Release counter-videos, stressing how the operations should work and how employees are trained to treat livestock ethically instead.  Fix the problem and continue to strive for a better environment, not just the cheapest way to mass-produce meat products.  Talk about the strict policies, which should be in place to get rid of anyone who acts cruelly and follow through.  Any employee who enjoys hurting or mistreating animals should be fired immediately.

Instead of overblown new laws and political battles, agricultural companies should focus inwards on fixing the problems that created the bad publicity rather than trying to outlaw the messenger.

              

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense.  He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management.  Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces.  To learn more visit http://www.businesskarate.com. 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com. 

Terror in Norway and Global Threats

               Anders Breivik carried out one of the worst solitary attacks in modern history, killing as many as 98 people, mostly teenagers, in a few hours.  First, the bomb blast in Oslo and then the nearly 90 minute shooting spree on Utoya. 

               Breivik admits to carrying out the attacks, but denies any wrongdoing.  He also stated that there are two other cells.  These cells may have been involved or preparing to carry out further attacks.  Le Monde reported that he had over 600 Facebook friends who could have been affiliated through a group called English Defense League.

               As the investigation moves forward, the press from around the world is already beginning to try to make sense of the senseless.  Breivik has been characterized as a right-wing extremist, possible Neo-Nazi and one reporter even called him a Christian fundamentalist (wow!).  I have to say that I haven’t heard of any Christian groups that support Breivik’s killings at all, so that last is a real ridiculous stretch.  And of course, the focus has quickly turned to immigration policy as the heart of this killer’s manifesto focused on the unchecked immigration from other areas, including Muslims.  One priest from Oslo was quoted saying that she was happy it was not an Islamic terror attack and seemed to think that it was a good thing a white right-wing extremist was behind it, as if that changes the fact that 90-some people are dead.

               Breivik claims that he joined a re-incarnated Knights Templar, in London, in 2002, and the groups’ intentions were to protect Europe from a second, modern Muslim invasion.  Little is known about the group at this point, but I am sure that there are investigations under way to learn as much as possible. 

               It is natural to try to understand why something like this happened.  It is also critical from a security and law enforcement perspective to get into the suspect’s mind in order to understand the thinking and use that to prevent future attacks.

               The risk is that it is easy to be sidetracked by names or labels.  It has been said that generals are always trying to fight the last war that happened with their tactics rather than the current threat.  That is the problem with being too focused on labels, such as right wing or anti-immigration and so on.  We cannot forget that threats come from many different angles and different directions and it is hard to define one bad guy to watch for.  In fact, the world is full of many, vastly different bad guys and gals, threatening us in various ways.

               These threats can come from the left or right political views, such as ELF and ALF.  They can be foreign and domestic.  In fact, the lines can become rather blurry at times.  For example, the bombing attacks in London in 2005 were carried out by ‘homegrown’ terrorists - citizens of the United Kingdom that were influenced by Islamic terrorists.  Fifty-two victims were left dead.

               In Mumbai, India, the attack that left 174 dead in November of 2008 was carried out by Pakistani terrorists.  The most recent bombings in Mumbai are still under investigation.  In Madrid, al-Qaida-inspired terrorists left 191 people dead after explosions on the train system.  And, of course, there were the al-Qaida attacks of 9-11 that killed almost 3,000. 

               Whether the threat is from Osama Bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh, the basic steps to prevent and protect ourselves is the same.  It is important that everyone be alert to suspicious activity, such as what happened in Times Square when a car bomb failed to detonate and passersby alerted authorities.  Security staff should be trained to look for signs of surveillance or practice runs, a precursor to most attacks. 

               And last, a risk assessment designed to recognize global threats should be conducted.  This can focus on known or likely threats, vulnerabilities in the protection program and critical areas or assets.  A risk assessment needs to be ongoing, a process constantly re-evaluating new information and changes in the threat environment. 

               Do not lose your focus on all the potential threats and become obsessed with only the latest news of the day or get distracted by the labels used. 

    

Have you wondered how to deal with an aggressive employee or phone threats against a staff member?  Do you have the security system you should?  Are you worried about how your business would handle an emergency situation?  There are lots of worries as a leader in your organization.  Security risks do not have to be one of them.  I am available for business coaching sessions with a focus on security and operational risk management.  The first session includes a money back guarantee if you are not completely satisfied.  For more information, send an email to eric@businesskarate.com. 

Feeding the Hand that Bites You – Lessons from Libya

Eric Smith, CPP

               Just before Christmas 1988, the 747 took off from Heathrow for New York.  Less than an hour later, a bomb on the airplane exploded.  The plane quickly began to split apart and the cockpit broke off, beginning a freefall that lasted about two minutes.  Passengers not strapped to the fuselage were blown out of the plane.  Forensic experts believed that the passengers would have lost consciousness initially due to the rapid change in air pressure, but that they may have regained consciousness before the plane hit the ground, a terrible possibility.  The wing of the plane hit several homes in Lockerbie Scotland, killing 11 people including at least one entire family.  In total, 270 people were killed in the horrific attack.

               The investigation revealed that Libya was behind the attack and as recently as February of 2011, a former Libyan minister reported that Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s dictator, had personally ordered the bombing.

               There is no doubt that Gaddafi is evil.  So when rebels began protesting earlier this year and fighting against his regime the obvious choice was to help the rebels.  NATO finally responded to support the rebel forces with France taking a leadership role even taking further actions and supplying arms to the rebels despite complaints from Russia and China.

               Le Figaro and Bloomberg Business News reported that some weapons supplied to the rebels, the National Transitional Council, were recovered from al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) forces in northern Africa.  AQIM forces have been fighting the security forces of several countries in the region.  Among the weapons finding their way to al-Qaida extremists are rocket launchers, rifles and Semtex.  Ironically, Semtex is the same plastic explosive used on Pan Am 103 in Lockerbie. 

               We’ve all heard the expression “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”  Unfortunately, in this case, we see an example of the opposite where we are feeding the hand that bites (or slaps) back. 

               This type of risk is not limited to international terrorism or global conflicts.  The same is true in other settings, where individuals or organizations try, with the best of intentions, to help someone or some group, but open themselves to risks.

               Healthcare is a good example.  Violence against care providers is rampant within the healthcare industry, especially for anyone working with mental health patients or in emergency departments.  Nurses trying to help patients are the ones most likely to be attacked by that same patient.

               The good news is that there are lessons to be learned, lessons that can be applied in other situations, whether opening an international business operation, dealing with global conflicts or even violent behavior by a patient.

1.     Consider the unintended consequences.

2.     Identify the players.

3.     Control the game.

4.    Don’t ignore the warning signs.

Consider the unintended consequences.  This is perhaps the trickiest part of risk management.  Risk assessments are based on known or threats and vulnerabilities.  The key is to look beyond the surface and develop an understanding of how different pieces of the puzzle fit together.  In a chess game, a player needs to think five moves ahead and all the possible contingencies depending on what their opponent does.  Be willing to think through a wide range of scenarios and ask yourself what if questions.  This approach can help identify hazards that might have been overlooked.  Or even reveal opportunities that could have been missed.

Identify the players.  In real life, it can be very hard to find out who the good guy is or who the bad guy is.  Even in the case of healthcare, the belligerent, drunk patient may not do anything physically, but the grandmother with dementia may attack the nurse, without knowing what she is doing.  In the situation in Libya, it should have been clear that some rebels may have ties to al-Qaida and that, at some point, weapons would find their way to extremists. 

Control the game.  You cannot control every element or risk factor, but it is critical to limit your exposure to potential risks.  If you are expanding an international business, or any commercial undertaking, it makes sense to try to mitigate the items that you have no control over.  In Libya, France should have used tighter control on the arms shipments and who was receiving them.  For instance, air dropping the supplies to known individuals and in smaller quantities until their trust was ensured.  In business, the easiest option may be to rely on one supplier for critical items.  To control the game, identify alternative suppliers and have a backup plan in case the primary source is not available. 

Don’t ignore the warning signs.  It is extremely easy to focus so intensely on accomplishing a goal that we overlook warning signs.  Across the Middle East, there have been worries about the rebels in Egypt, Syria and Yemen and the ties to Islamic extremism and terrorism.  The same concerns apply to the National Transitional Council and some of the individuals fighting Gaddafi.  The same is true in areas such as healthcare.  Too often, nurses ignore the warning signs of escalating violent behavior until the patient is punching, kicking or biting employees. 

These tips can help with business negotiations as well as national security.  And sometimes, the best course of action is to walk away.  With the Libyan situation, unless we can follow the rules above, NATO and France could be getting into a no-win situation. 

Eric Smith, CPP is available for business coaching services.  His emphasis is on security and operational risk management.  To learn more about coaching or security training, contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com.      

The War on Terrorism: What Comes Next?

               Finally, the day we’ve long waited for has come.  Osama bin Laden (or Usama, if you prefer) is dead.  About that there is no doubt, no matter if, or really when, photos are released.  The U.S. government could not, and would not, be so adamant if there was any chance that Osama could show up in a video, obviously alive.

               The real question then is what does this mean in terms of global terrorism.  Since 9-11 we have lived under the threat of terrorist attacks.  Around the world, al-Qaida has coordinated attacks in London, Madrid and Indonesia.  With Osama gone, will the threat die out with him or will it continue?

               Osama has clearly had some communication with the outside world while in hiding in Pakistan.  He used couriers to relay messages, but apparently did not have a phone or even Internet access.  It is hard to imagine that he has been heavily involved in any planning of future attacks, at least not directly.

               What legacy will he leave behind and will anyone take up the leadership of al-Qaida and continue in his footsteps?  According to some of the information being released, Osama did spend a great deal of time and effort on succession planning.  If that is accurate, then it is almost certain that someone will be taking his spot, at least in the short term.  If he really did put that much effort into succession planning then we should assume that part of that would be giving the new leader some immediate successes.  He could have prepared a number of attacks to be carried out upon his death with the credit going to the new leader to build his reputation and standing amongst radical Muslims. 

               Some intelligence sources have indicated that there are 600-800 cells in the United States alone.  Any one of these could see the death of Osama as a trigger to attack.  However, I imagine that a large percentage of those cells have become comfortable in the new lives and may be reluctant to follow through.  Still, a number of recent arrests prove that there are those terrorists in this country ready and willing to follow through.  The attempted car bombing in Times Square is a glaring example.

               On the other hand, without a clear leader, al-Qaida could disintegrate in a wave of internal strife and fighting over the reins.  Perhaps, the information on the succession planning may be greatly exaggerated as part of a way for Osama to keep the Western world in fear.  Even if al-Qaida were to fall apart, it is no time to let down our guard or relax our vigilance.  Events in Egypt, Syria and even Libya, as well as Iran, clearly show the ongoing risk and anti-western thought by many radicals in the Middle East. 

               Whether or not al-Qaida survives or is replaced by another group, the answer is clearly that we cannot let down our guard.  Terrorism will survive and continue to be a real threat.  We cannot go back to the innocence or naivety of the 1980’s where terrorists were a somewhat comical character.

               Experts and analysts will make many predictions and some may be right.  The bottom line, though, is that the threats are very real and still with us.  We must continue to protect our infrastructures and our lives.

               The threat may not be over, but the death of Osama is certainly worthy of commendation.  Without doubt, Osama bin Laden was evil and responsible for the deaths of thousands, not just on 9-11.  Anytime the world is ridden of someone so evil, it is always a plus.  No matter what comes next, the world is a better place without Osama bin Laden.