Rethinking the Soft Target: A Stewardship Approach

The tragic shooting attack at First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas, prompted renewed consternation among security professionals regarding soft target risk mitigation and defense strategies. This deadliest church shooting in U.S. history generated renewed questions from our friends, family, and neighbors who either work at or frequent soft target locations, from sidewalk cafes to movie theaters and churches, and who expressed a feeling of helplessness in the face of increasing assaults on our most vulnerable sites.

When faced with such questions, security professionals often respond by huddling among ourselves to double check and wrestle with our strategies for response plans, perimeter security, access control, cameras, and staffing. Yet, although counterintuitive, we must also inclusively embrace those who question us and view them not just as constituents but as soft target stewards who represent our best chance to: “Deter, Detect, Delay, and Deal” with the next attack.

Soft target security thinking has evolved in a linear fashion to make softer targets harder by expanding perimeters, adding cameras, hiring guard staff and drafting response plans where none previously existed. This strategy served us well where appropriate and viable. For example, shopping malls, stadiums, and arenas have been increasingly hardened while preserving free-flowing access for those with a reason to be there.

social-media-security-1

But what of the truly soft target which by its very nature must remain publicly accessible with minimal impediments to patronage? The sidewalk café, the church or synagogue, the election polling site, all represent well known but fragile public-private hybrids of a necessary human interface. Increasingly, the corporate Media Security Argentina sector finds itself facing similar challenges as they struggle to design lobby area hybrid spaces to permit public crowd-sourcing and computer coding, community meetings, and first-floor dining options open to employees and the public. Such mixed-use space within corporate facilities is on the rise as cities and states mandate them as part of tax subsidy packages offered to relocate companies. This challenge calls for rethinking what it means to harden soft targets, and, to fully view the task through the lens of stewardship.

Webster’s Dictionary offers a definition of stewardship that includes, “…especially the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.”  Restaurants, taverns, recreation centers, amphitheaters, corporate offices, and churches, all entrust employees with cash management, key customers, sanitary laws, and in the case of churches, the spiritual lives of parishioners. Yet, in many cases, security awareness and training for these stewards remains limited to superficial levels.

Soft target stewards, including security officers, can and should gain deeper understanding of security plans and procedures via existing tools and techniques such as short, animated video clips during meal breaks, and assignment of certain roles and responsibilities such as evacuation, 911 calling, communication of observed risk indicators to other employees and managers, handling of suspicious packages, and other critical actions. Waiters and waitresses, ushers and umpires, lifeguards and leasing agents must now become a part of a policy and procedure development so that their role in the efficient management of an incident is rehearsed, focused, and instinctive.

Security Training Must be Inclusive

Those responsible for securing soft targets are familiar with the need to establish processes, procedures, roles, and responsibilities within security plans. Security leaders often correctly assert that they “own” these plans for the entity they are securing. Accountable security leadership is essential and advisable. However, security cannot occur in a vacuum and soft targets uniquely call for a more holistic, inclusive approach than currently employed.

Soft target defense is ill-served by a traditional binary approach that views security professionals as sole owners of security planning and execution, and constituents as solely those we protect. In fact, the softer the target, the more we must view every employee, vendor, contractor, and in some cases guest, as stewards of the security of that site.

Communication is Key

The best methods to implement a stewardship approach will vary with the nature of the location and the associated risk, but the concepts of “Deter, Detect, Delay and Deal” can be taught to employees who learn how to identify threats early, communicate and disseminate information efficiently, and react positively. Employees of all stripes can be taught process and procedure designed by professionals and instilled through scenario-based exercises and discussions that prompt independent thought and focus. When it comes to soft targets, protecting the crowd must, more than ever, incorporate the wisdom of the crowd, beginning with all employees and staff.

Article Source

Worrying About Terrorism May Kill You : Business Travellers

The looming shadow of terrorism is pervasive. The recent suicide attack that targeted a music concert in Manchester, UK; the vehicle attack in London, UK, two months prior;  and compounded further by regular images across the media of marauding attacks in cities such as Paris and Berlin. These acts of extreme violence are perpetrated by individuals who embrace death as part of the objective of their actions. The very thought of this is no doubt extremely worrisome, but what are the chances of falling victim to terrorism? The simple answer: very small indeed.  Worrying about terrorism to the neglect of more prevalent threats, however, may actually increase your risk.

Business Traveler Tracking quite often has irrational or misplaced fears that can lead them to not feel secure, when in fact they are, while conversely some often feel secure when abroad but are actually far from it. A significant number of travelers fear the risk of terrorism and, in doing so, neglect those risks that are statistically far more likely to kill or injure them.

“Security is two different things – it is a feeling and a reality. You can feel secure even if you are not and you can be secure even if you don’t feel it,” says security technologist Bruce Schneier.

Schneier further explains certain biases in risk perception:

Human beings tend to exaggerate spectacular and rare risks and downplay common risks.

The unknown is perceived to be riskier than the familiar.

Why and how do these relate to business travel safety?

Bias #1: Human Beings Tend to Exaggerate Spectacular, Rare Risks and Downplay Common Risks

This has led to many people being overly focused on the risk of terrorism. In turn, business travelers and those responsible for the security of business travelers often neglect those threats that are statistically far more likely to kill or injure, such as road traffic incidents, crime, and drowning.

What is most likely to kill you when traveling?

The U.S State Department maintains records of all registered deaths of U.S. citizens abroad. The details identify for the majority what they died of and where. The results may surprise you. See the two charts in the images above for details.

In Figure 2, it is interesting to note the correlation between deaths due to Terrorism (Yellow) and that of deaths due to Pedestrian accidents (Orange).

traveler-tracking

Bias #2: the Unknown Is Perceived to Be Riskier Than the Familiar

Regular travelers to a certain city or location may likely become complacent, especially if they have not been directly affected by any of the dangers or hazards that may be present. This is also referred to as “Boiling Frog Syndrome” – named from the phenomenon that a frog is put into boiling water, will immediately jump out, but if you place the frog in cold water and slowly heat it up will stay in there and eventually boil to death.  Not an overly joyous image, but one that paints the picture accurately.

This complacency prevalent with certain travelers often leads to their safety and security decreasing whilst the chances of them being a victim of the crime or neglecting risks increasing. If our feelings match security reality – we make better tradeoffs.  To improve our personal security when traveling it is important to understand these two key biases.

“If it is in the news don’t worry about it, as by definition news is something that almost never happens,” says Bruce Schneier. The solution, therefore, is to know what the risks are – and obtain “Ground Truth.” This should involve research into your destination. What are the main dangers of the country or cities that you will be visiting?

Crime, natural disasters, health issues and political instability are all important factors to consider. Consider also specific and current issues such as date rape drugs being utilized in a tourist hotspot, or a spate of recent muggings in certain locations. Study the U.S. State Department website or the equivalent travel advisory guidance of your country of origin.

Another great resource of information is commercial websites where one can interact on chat forums, advice pages, and blogs.  The website Lonely Planet is a very useful source of information as are Twitter feeds such as @ExploreSecure. Learn from others’ mistakes and experiences.

Yes, terrorism is a risk and not one to be dismissed – but the chances of falling victim to it are statistically very small indeed. By worrying about terrorism to the neglect of more prevalent and pervasive threats, you are likely to increase your risk of being a victim.