- Email: [email protected]
A fractured reaction to the Christmas bomber
BODY SCANNERS
A fractured reaction to the Christmas bomber Neil Fisher, vice president global security solutions, Unisys The attempted suicide bomb on the Christmas Day Delta flight 253 heading for Detroit has prompted a long overdue assessment of the UK’s security preparedness. Following the airport’s failure to detect the explosive material, concealed under Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s clothing, the government has made a number of reassuring pronouncements, and full-body scanners have been swiftly placed on order. Given my background in the British army and at defence research company Qinetiq, I have first-hand experience of working with this technology. While these scanners have been presented as a panacea for securing our borders, the emphasis is in my opinion, misplaced.
A knee-jerk reaction The moving image millimetre wave (MMW) body scanner, which is most suited for this context, works well with skin, ceramics and metal and can image compressed plastics such as Semtex explosives, but not ordinary plastic. This means that it probably would not have picked-up the bomb. Given the technology’s limitations, I would argue that full-body scanners are only useful as part of a holistic approach to airport security; on their own, they are just a knee-jerk response to a retrospective threat. A coordinated security strategy on the other hand, would deploy a front line sen-
sor as just one of four critical steps: integrated sensors; fused data; common operational picture; and joined-up back office analysis. It would also pre-empt a variety of different scenarios where a point solution on its own would fail. For instance, we wouldn’t want to use this short range detection to find a suicide bomber in a crowded place. Which begs the question, what’s the protocol once you’ve actually detected a suspected suicide bomber? What we have done so far is to react to threats as they occur, partly because this approach saves money in the short-term. Instead we need to make the terrorist
respond to our forceful capability. Only then will the UK be a harder nut to crack and a less attractive terrorist target as a result.
About the author Neil Fisher is vice president of global security solutions. Prior to joining Unisys in 2006, he was the focus for security capability development at QinetiQ and played a leading role in its security and intelligence business. Neil’s security background started in the UK army where he was involved in counter terrorist and information operations and an advisor on Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP). He left the military in 1999 to become the UK MD of a US dot.com infrastructure intelligence company called iDEFENSE, and a US biometrics firm. In addition to his role at Unisys, Neil is also the vice chair of the UK’s Information Assurance Advisory Council (IAAC). He has a BSc(ENG) in telecommunications systems, and is a chartered engineer.
A new strategy for the protection of intellectual property Meenu Gupta, CISA, CISM, CISSP, CIPP When a class of undergraduate students at the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) was asked to describe their understanding of intellectual property (IP), they were eager to do so. Most of them, being members of Generation X or Y, were all too familiar with the music industry’s quest for protecting music and other entertainment material from illegal downloads and/or sharing. However, they gave little or no thought of other forms of intellectual property. Traditionally, people look at intellectual property as the work that was someone’s brainchild, such as music, literature and art. The loss of this work would result in 8
Computer Fraud & Security
the loss of revenue and recognition for the creator. IP protection has concerned itself with ensuring that no one (an individual or an organisation) illegally takes
ownership of or makes illegal use of the IP. The government of the United States early on recognised that IP needed to be protected to promote innovation. As a result it established the US Patent and Trademark Office, which provides such protection for patents and trademarks. Shortly thereafter in 1790, the US Copyright Office was established as part of the Library of Congress, to provide copyright protections to writers. Since then, IP has been expanded to include February 2010
A fractured reaction to the Christmas bomber Neil Fisher, vice president global security solutions, Unisys The attempted suicide bomb on the Christmas Day Delta flight 253 heading for Detroit has prompted a long overdue assessment of the UK’s security preparedness. Following the airport’s failure to detect the explosive material, concealed under Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s clothing, the government has made a number of reassuring pronouncements, and full-body scanners have been swiftly placed on order. Given my background in the British army and at defence research company Qinetiq, I have first-hand experience of working with this technology. While these scanners have been presented as a panacea for securing our borders, the emphasis is in my opinion, misplaced.
A knee-jerk reaction The moving image millimetre wave (MMW) body scanner, which is most suited for this context, works well with skin, ceramics and metal and can image compressed plastics such as Semtex explosives, but not ordinary plastic. This means that it probably would not have picked-up the bomb. Given the technology’s limitations, I would argue that full-body scanners are only useful as part of a holistic approach to airport security; on their own, they are just a knee-jerk response to a retrospective threat. A coordinated security strategy on the other hand, would deploy a front line sen-
sor as just one of four critical steps: integrated sensors; fused data; common operational picture; and joined-up back office analysis. It would also pre-empt a variety of different scenarios where a point solution on its own would fail. For instance, we wouldn’t want to use this short range detection to find a suicide bomber in a crowded place. Which begs the question, what’s the protocol once you’ve actually detected a suspected suicide bomber? What we have done so far is to react to threats as they occur, partly because this approach saves money in the short-term. Instead we need to make the terrorist
respond to our forceful capability. Only then will the UK be a harder nut to crack and a less attractive terrorist target as a result.
About the author Neil Fisher is vice president of global security solutions. Prior to joining Unisys in 2006, he was the focus for security capability development at QinetiQ and played a leading role in its security and intelligence business. Neil’s security background started in the UK army where he was involved in counter terrorist and information operations and an advisor on Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP). He left the military in 1999 to become the UK MD of a US dot.com infrastructure intelligence company called iDEFENSE, and a US biometrics firm. In addition to his role at Unisys, Neil is also the vice chair of the UK’s Information Assurance Advisory Council (IAAC). He has a BSc(ENG) in telecommunications systems, and is a chartered engineer.
A new strategy for the protection of intellectual property Meenu Gupta, CISA, CISM, CISSP, CIPP When a class of undergraduate students at the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) was asked to describe their understanding of intellectual property (IP), they were eager to do so. Most of them, being members of Generation X or Y, were all too familiar with the music industry’s quest for protecting music and other entertainment material from illegal downloads and/or sharing. However, they gave little or no thought of other forms of intellectual property. Traditionally, people look at intellectual property as the work that was someone’s brainchild, such as music, literature and art. The loss of this work would result in 8
Computer Fraud & Security
the loss of revenue and recognition for the creator. IP protection has concerned itself with ensuring that no one (an individual or an organisation) illegally takes
ownership of or makes illegal use of the IP. The government of the United States early on recognised that IP needed to be protected to promote innovation. As a result it established the US Patent and Trademark Office, which provides such protection for patents and trademarks. Shortly thereafter in 1790, the US Copyright Office was established as part of the Library of Congress, to provide copyright protections to writers. Since then, IP has been expanded to include February 2010