Buy Viagra Without Prescription - Trusted Online Pharmacy

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

June 25, 2010

Propecia Over The Counter

Filed under: Catastrophes,Port and Maritime Security,Strategy — by Philip J. Palin on June 25, 2010

Editorial note: Propecia over the counter, Last evening John Comiskey posted the following as a comment to my Thursday post (immediately below this post).  Without receiving his permission, I am moving John's comment to today's front page.  If you have read John's prior comments you know he serves with the NYPD and is also with the Coast Guard Reserve.  John is currently deployed with the USCG to the Gulf of Mexico.  Full disclosure, John and I both serve on the faculty of the new Pace University graduate program in management for public safety and homeland security professionals.  We have met each other precisely once, at a Spring faculty meeting.

--+--


Your Grandpa sounds like a wonderful man. I imagine that he too would be overwhelmed and even frustrated by the levels of bureaucracy and particularly the federal government’s grant strategy (get the locals to do what you want by footing some or the entire bill). North Carolina NC N.C. , “All politics are local and most times federal too” might be the old “all politics are local.”

That being said, it sounds like your grandfather would have found a way. Bennet’s axiom “People are discouraged, Arkansas AR Ark. , encourage them, Køb discount propecia, ” should be a homeland security and preparedness mantra.  The obvious -- helping people -- seems within our grasp, but eludes us all too often.

Homeland security and preparedness are a Pandora's box of sorts (privacy intrusions, buy cheap propecia online, challenges to rights & privileges, Colorado CO Colo. , economic costs, and others things that are not so nice). But, we need to remind ourselves that the original Pandora's Box also offered hope, propecia over the counter.

Today, Osta propecia online, I heard a Coast Guard Commander refer to Deepwater Horizon as the Coast Guard’s Afghanistan. Propecia sale, The “long spill,” Deepwater Horizon, like the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq require fortitude, pharmacie propecia bon marché, patience, Ordering propecia no rx, understanding, and hope. Somebody said “hope is not a plan.” Just the same I will keep on hoping and praying for the best whilst I prepare for the worst, order propecia from canada.

The emotional toll to Gulf residents, αγοράζουν online propecia, government workers, and cleanup volunteers warrants consideration and is bound to be high. Propecia over the counter, The days ahead present three overarching challenges: stopping the spill, extracting the maximum amount of oil feasible, and mitigating the damage. The current forecast of 23+ storms with a 50% chance of a significant storm make that challenge all the more challenging –or might clean most of the mess up -mother nature is most resilient, Kentucky KY Ky. .

I have come to know some of the people of NOLA and have found them to be concerned but going about their business best they can. North Dakota ND , They talk a lot of football. LSU and the Saints are dear to their hearts. Last year’s super bowl celebration has continued with the team’s preseason visit to Louisiana communities weary of oil: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127561660

If I remain in NOLA past September, I will likely attend a game, propecia over the counter. For the record I am a Jets fan, Oklahoma OK Okla. . Football players and fans are resilient. Nevada NV Nev. , My new colleagues in NOLA poke fun at my New York accent. In turn, I enjoy their nawlins’ colloquialisms, Jotta propecia verkossa. Propecia over the counter, They seem to appreciate my reviews of their restaurants and haunts. So far Acme Oyster House, Buy cheap propecia, Tujajues, and Café du Monde top the list. Nothing like football and food to bind people, Illinois IL Ill. .

I have found that Katrina has left the people of NOLA with doubts in the efficacy of the federal government and particularly FEMA. Acheter en ligne propecia, NOLA’s celebrated relationship with the Coast Guard seems uneasy at best. I am told too little is being done too slowly, propecia over the counter. That phenomena might be a study in a relationship earned in one disaster (Katrina) only to be lost in another (DWH). Social capital is easier lost than earned, kjøpe propecia online.

The USCG is most resilient. Bestill propecia online, It is and always has been a multi-mission organization. Propecia over the counter, Today that mission is clear: ensure and facilitate the RP’s (responsible party) response – in this case BP. That mission will not make the Coast Guard popular.

From my view BP is doing all that it can and is most instances more than that, cheap propecia overnight delivery. The American people need to know that without the media hype. Delaware DE Del. , BP too is resilient. I imagine someone or some people high in the organization deliberated as to their course of action –cut and run or invest in their enterprise, propecia over the counter. BP chose the latter. I can’t and won’t speak to BP’s alleged wrongdoing because I don’t know if they were negligent or had a catastrophic industrial accident, District of Columbia DC D.C. . I know that matter is being investigated and await the final analysis. Buy propecia no rx, Recovery requires everyone to look past their factions, fights, frustrations, and everything else.

I’m rooting for the people of the Gulf and the United States of America.

Similar posts: Order diazepam. Order viagra free samples without prescription. Purchase viagra. Order diazepam online cheap. Cialis over the counter. Sildenafil citrate from mexico.
Trackbacks from: Propecia over the counter. Propecia over the counter. Propecia over the counter. Propecia over the counter. Propecia over the counter. Propecia over the counter.

February 3, 2009

US-EU-NATO Discuss the Supply Chain

Filed under: International HLS,Port and Maritime Security,Strategy — by Jonah Czerwinski on February 3, 2009
Greetings from Munich. The conference here at the University of the Bundeswehr kicked off this week with a fitting representation of the challenges to global supply chain security from the perspectives of allied military and academic business. Michael Ritchie, Director, the USEUCOM Commander’s Interagency Engagement Group opened the conference with VADM Gallagher, Deputy Commander of EUCOM, Dr. Andreas Brieden, Dean of the School of Business, here at the Universität der Bundeswehr München, and Colonel Freitag, Head of the Military Department, at the Universität. It seems as though IBM and CISCO are the only private sector companies participating in this symposium. Global supply chain security is a concern for military in terms of supply and logistics for their own operations, but also in terms of their obligation to possibly protect private sector supply chains as an attractive target by terrorists or other adversaries. The private sector already deals with numerous risks to our supply chains, which is one reason why IBM sought to be involved in this discussion. I’ll present on GMM this afternoon and my colleague Colm Leonard, Executive Program Manager, Import Compliance & Supply Chain Security, IBM, will present on a panel discussion to review solutions for greater supply chain visibility and security. We heard yesterday from a number of experts. Most interesting was a presentation by the DHS attaché at the European Union. She is technically a CBP employee and gave a detailed run-down of C-TPAT, Secure Freight Initiative, Container Security Initiative, and other targeting measures to reduce risk in global supply chains in which the U.S. is a major link. Her counterpart at the EU also presented and described a number of similar programs. Like C-TPAT, the EU grants special status to “Authorized Economic Operators.” Here in Europe, companies can provide greater transparency into their supply chains so that EU authorities can better identify risks to shared links in the global supply chain. The trust shared between the EU and these AEOs is similar to that which is extended between DHS and C-TPAT members. Wouldn’t it be great if we could merge the membership? That is a goal, but the companies participating in C-TPAT or as AEOs remain concerned about the privacy protections for themselves if proprietary information about their supply chains – arguably major components in their competitive advantages – is shared with other governments that may favor domestic businesses. Alas, we have a long way to go in this regard. But merely getting the stakeholders in the room is a valuable first step. I’ll post again later with an update on today’s exchange. The more interesting dimensions of this is a working group of which I’m a part. All symposium participants are broken into groups to dive deeper into such challenges as AEO/C-TPAT integration. In my group, I have the CISCO guy, another IBMer who deals with NATO, and military reps from Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and the U.S.

November 24, 2008

White House, DHS Lay Down New Rule for Shippers to Share Better Targeting Data

Filed under: Intelligence and Info-Sharing,Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on November 24, 2008
Today DHS announced a new regulation that requires maritime cargo carriers and importers to submit more data to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) about thier shipments. The goal is to better target risks in the maritime domain with inspections, added screening, security scanning, etc. The private sector must submit the additional information to CBP before vessels and their cargo are permitted to enter the U.S. Small businesses view this as a major setback for their competitiveness – and they have some backing on the Hill. The Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements requires that importers submit an Importer Security Filing (ISF) with the so-called “10+2” data set no later than 24 hours before the cargo is loaded onto a ship destined for the U.S. Last month, The White House held a meeting with representatives from the private sector and relevant government agencies, including CBP, to discuss the proposed regulation. The meeting, which seems to have been hosted by the White House Office of Management and Budget, was entitled “"10+2" Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements” and took place on October 6. In attendance either by phone or in person were the following: • Kristy Daphnis OMB/OIRA • Nelson Garcia Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Assoc. • Tom Sullivan SBA/Office of Advocacy • Bruce Lundegren SBA Office of Advocacy • Peter Friedmann Pac. Coast Council & CONECT • Ray Bucheger Pac. Coast Council & CONECT • Bryan Zumwalt National Marine Manufacturers Association • Shannon Richter OMB • Bruce Hirsh USTR • Ted Posner NSC • Elena Ryan USCBP • Lorrie Rodbart USCBP • Chris Pappas USCBP • Jerry Coleman, Porta-Nails in North Carolina; • Bill Gullickson, McLaughlin Gormiey King Co in Minnesota; • Maggie Smith, Coppersmith, Inc. in California; • Linda Wood, Bennett and Company in Massachusetts; • Roger Clarke, Williams Clarke Company, Inc. in California; • Robin Grove, Masterpiece International in California; • Anne Marie Bush, Veritrade International in Washington; • Karen Kenney, Liberty Internationai in Massachusetts; • Silvia Scherer, Trade Tech Inc. in Washington; and • Patricia Hainline, George S. Bush Co. in Oregon. Congresswoman Valezquiez, Chairwoman of the Committee on Small Business, wrote a letter to OMB Director Jim Nussle explaining that CBP has failed to meet its obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RegFlex") to “properly analyze the economic impact of the 10 + 2 Rule on small entities.” RegFlex was enacted to limit disproportionate burdens on small businesses and entrepreneurs facing industry-wide regulations. To accomplish this, RegFlex mandates that federal agencies conduct an analysis with a “description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” CBP has stated that it “does not identify any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that specifically address small entities.” To be fair, the interim final rule includes a delayed compliance date of one year after the interim final rule takes effect. If CBP perceives a “good faith effort and satisfactory progress toward compliance” among the noncompliant during the first year, CBP “will show restraint in enforcing the rule.” According to Scott Gudes, Vice President, Government Relations, of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), CBP will see a number of such cases because Small businesses, including small brokers, do not have:
1. The resources, i.e., customs experts, to help collect and compile the information being required 2. The 10+2 management system needed to allow their clients to collect 10+2 data from all involved parties 3. The integrated computer systems needed to process the information and communicate with suppliers abroad
CBP will conduct a review to determine any specific compliance difficulties that importers and shippers may experience in complying. Both the Congresswoman and the NMMA believe that the unintended consequences likely to be found include increased inventories, additional charges for dwell time, and costly infrastructure and IT system upgrades that larger firms can more easily absorb. CBP’s review is intended to address just these types of impacts. It will examine compliance costs, the barriers to submitting the data 24 hours prior to lading, and the benefits of collecting the data. CBP states that “based upon the analysis, DHS will determine whether to eliminate, modify or maintain these requirements.” The Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements interim final rule will take effect 60 days from today.

October 24, 2008

CBP Plans New Data Sharing Rule for International Shippers to the U.S.

Filed under: Intelligence and Info-Sharing,Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on October 24, 2008
DHS Customs and Border Protection plans to issue a new rule requiring U.S. importers and manufacturers to provide new data about U.S.-bound shipments. The data sharing procedure is designed to improve port security and prevent terrorist use of shipments and containers headed U.S. The proposed rule is part of the SAFE Port Act of 2006, in which CBP began requiring 12 new categories of data on shipments to the U.S. to be provided at least 24 hours before loading in foreign ports. The Hill reports today that business groups oppose the rule, warning that it would “disrupt supply chains without improving security at a time when the U.S. economy is in the doldrums.” The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is been leading the effort to oppose, or at least modify, the proposed rule. NAM is joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the European-American Business Council, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Consumer Electronics Association. DHS suggests the new rule could at first delay shipments by as much as 24 hours, and will eventually drop to 12 hours. Businesses, however, suggest that security would be actually reduced because cargo would sit unguarded while it awaited permission to be loaded and that today’s already fragile global economy can’t handle further strains like those they believe the new rule would impose. The new rule would prohibit a shipment from leaving its foreign port until DHS has the required data for each container. NAM argues that other hidden costs of compliance, longer delays in the supply chain, software needs, and added personnel for the new requirements would cost U.S. businesses about $20 billion a year. These firms also argue it is more realistic to expect a two-to-five-day delay, depending on the complexity of the supply chain. As a compromise, opponents in the private sector are calling for a pilot program to be set up to test the new rule on a small scale first before full deployment. While OMB and DHS are inundated with complaints from constituents in the manufacturing districts of Michigan and hard-hitting lobbying efforts by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a CBP spokeswoman told The Hill that OMB “is currently leading an interagency review of the rule, but would not comment on … why the agency wants to proceed without a pilot program.”

August 19, 2008

Global Supply Chain Security Makes Progress Through Partnerships

Filed under: International HLS,Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on August 19, 2008
Whoever says that homeland security is a domestic enterprise misses the big picture (and a number of posts here). GAO this month released a study commissioned by the Congress that investigates how U.S. Customs and Border Protection engages the global community to harmonize security standards intended to secure the international supply chain. “CBP has taken a lead role in working with foreign customs administrations and the World Customs Organization (WCO),” GAO states. Oceangoing cargo containers serve as the lifeblood of global trade. Yet they also pose a risk of terrorist exploitation, according to the GAO and numerous other studies. CBP is the main government entity in the U.S. responsible for overseeing security of the global supply chain. The adoption of uniform international customs security standards is the foundation for governance frameworks that can support greater security through mutual recognition of customs security-related practices and programs. Ultimately, such governance frameworks enable partnering nations to recognize and accept security measures taken by another administration. This leads to less porous security networks, greater efficiencies, and a more resilient global economy. CBP collaborated with eleven other members of the WCO to develop the Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade (SAFE Framework), which draws upon familiar concepts of the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). While these two programs have their flaws, the SAFE Framework provides standards for collaboration among numerous national customs organizations participating in the global supply chain. As of July 2008, 154 WCO members had signed letters of intent to implement the SAFE Framework standards. While the SAFE Framework establishes a system of mutual recognition for smoother global trade among interdependent countries, it is by no means the only effort underway to harmonize global supply chain security initiatives. GAO reports that in June 2007, “CBP signed a mutual recognition arrangement with New Zealand – the first such arrangement in the world – to recognize each other's customs-to-business partnership programs.” Just this summer, CBP signed mutual recognition agreements with Jordan and Canada, and by early 2009, CBP anticipates establishing a mutual recognition agreement with the European Commission, representing 27 nations of the European Union.

May 27, 2008

Customs-Trade Security Program Scrutinized

Filed under: Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on May 27, 2008
The Government Accountability Office today released its assessment of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), a program by the Department of Homeland Security intended to reduce security scrutiny of importers, port authorities, and air, sea and land cargo carriers if these parties commit to self-imposed security standards. GAO finds that C-TPAT has gaps that terrorists could exploit to smuggle weapons of mass destruction in cargo containers. C-TPAT is the federal program established after 9/11 to discover or deter a potential terrorist attack on or use of commercial cargo passing through 326 of the nation's airports, seaports, and land crossings. GAO is also currently investigating the DHS programs focused on combating the threat of smuggled nuclear weapons, specifically those managed by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. They have expressed a specific interest in the strategy aspects of how the global nuclear detection architecture figures in. This line of inquiry quickly gets us to the topic of port security in light of the 9/11 Act and its corresponding mandate for 100% scanning of all cargo en route to U.S. ports and corresponding programs like C-TPAT. The nearly 8000 commercial participants in the C-TPAT program are granted reduced scrutiny of their cargo in exchange for submitting a security plan meeting U.S. Customs and Border Protection's standards and allowing CBP officials to verify (even at random) implementation of their measures. According to AP reporting on the GAO findings, under C-TPAT:
• Companies are certified based on self-reported security information that Customs employees use to determine if minimum government criteria are met. But due partly to limited resources, the agency does not typically test the member company's supply-chain security practices and thus is "challenged to know that members' security measures are reliable, accurate and effective." • Customs employees are not required to utilize third-party or other audits of a company's security measures as an alternative to the agency's direct testing, even if such audits exist. • Companies can get certified for reduced Customs inspections before they fully implement any additional security improvements requested by the U.S. government. Under the program, Customs also does not require its employees to systematically follow up to make sure the requested improvements were made and that security practices remained consistent with the minimum criteria.
I hope to give this GAO report a closer read today, but readers are encouraged to weigh in on the study if they’ve already culled through it in detail. In the meantime, keep an eye out for coverage of the House Homeland Security Committee hearings on resilience in Congressional Quarterly.

April 28, 2008

Small Vessel Security Strategy Announced

Filed under: Port and Maritime Security,Strategy — by Jonah Czerwinski on April 28, 2008
DHS today rolled out its Small Vessel Security Strategy (SVSS). The SVSS is designed to reduce risk without needlessly reducing “the freedom of operation common to the nation’s waterways,” according to the Department’s statement. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff cites the bombing of the USS Cole at a port in Yemen in 2000 as evidence that terrorists view the maritime domain as a target. He is quoted as saying that the security paradigm in today’s domestic waterways and port areas rely on an “honor-based neighborhood watch program.” The SVSS, he said, replaces this environment “with an efficient and successful means to combat terrorism along our waterways.” Readers may recall the National Small Vessel Security Summit that DHS convened in June 2007. Findings from this event informed the SVSS and identified risks associated with the illicit use of small vessels. The SVSS focuses on the following threats: • waterborne improvised explosive devices; • use of conveyances for smuggling weapons into the U.S.; • use of conveyances for smuggling terrorists into the U.S.; and • use of “waterborne platforms for conducting a stand-off attacks.” To mitigate these threats, the Small Vessel Security Strategy seeks: • Better identification of small vessels operating in U.S. waters; • Expanded radiological/nuclear detection capabilities; • Improved situational awareness and information sharing; • Enhanced data analysis to identify high-risk concerns; • Leveraged technology to enhance the ability to detect, determine intent and when necessary, interdict small vessels; and • Deepened “coordination, cooperation, and communications between federal, state, local and tribal partners in addition to the private sector and international partners.” The document actually includes descriptions of the authorities vested in DHS and the overall federal government in implementing this strategy. It also includes details about the roles served by each agency within and outside of DHS, and also a list of relevant interagency institutions. DHS plans next to develop the small vessel security implementation plan to take place this year.

February 1, 2008

DHS Small Vessel Security Summit Outlines Concrete Recommendations

Filed under: Port and Maritime Security,Strategy — by Jonah Czerwinski on February 1, 2008
DHS convened a major National Small Vessel Security Summit late last year, and the after action report is now available. While I first considered small boat security to be about as niche a topic as is possible (with more public affairs appeal than public policy), this report shows a heck of a lot of work went into the effort of making the event productive and relevant on a national scale.  The report was prepared by the Homeland Security Institute and, at 122 pages, is a daunting read. Especially with so few pictures. HLSWatch readers get the cliffs notes.  Main recommendations of the effort are as follows: 1.  AIS tracking technologies should not be required for vessels under 65 feet in length until the technology is perfected (read: likely never), the cost of such technology significantly reduced (read: paid by the Feds), and until law enforcement has the ability to track and respond to all vessels in the maritime domain (read: moveable goalpost). RFID technology or other OnStar-like monitoring features can be used in the meantime. 2.  The National Homeland Security Strategy needs a component that represents a National Small Vessel Security Strategy based on a layered defense. (Echoes of the WME Task Force.) This strategy should not, the report explains, focus on deterring a specific type of terrorist attack but should enhance the overall safety and security of the maritime domain. Rightly, the forum recommends that the strategy provide for guidance in coordination with international partners. 3.  Licensing, registration, or tracking of small boats used by private individuals should be accomplished by DHS with the lightest of touch. Failing to do so will be costly, ineffective, and rood (it will “alienate the small vessel operator”). 4.  State, local, tribal, and territorial maritime law enforcement entities need additional funding because, in addition to “other public safety and security missions,” this is too much. 5.  Establish a universal hotline telephone number, similar to the National Response Center 1-800 number, for the boating community to use in reporting suspicious activities and emergency situations. 6.  States could add a boat operator credential -- like those required for tractor trailer or school bus drivers -- to their state driver licenses. This could lead to a national boat registry for use by law enforcement agencies. 7.  The U.S. should enhance international cooperation and intelligence sharing with “our foreign counterparts,” especially Mexico, Canada, and countries of the Caribbean because these nations are the most likely departure points for a small vessel terrorist attack from overseas. 8.  More fusion centers! The report explains that conference participants felt that additional fusion centers would enable stakeholders to better share, analyze, and disseminate intelligence to with the USCG, CPB, U.S. Navy, the Harbor Master and state and local law enforcement agencies. 9.  Permanent Employment of the DNDO Act: Conference participants believe that federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies should be “provided with nuclear detection devices so they can detect radioactive signatures on small vessel and in cargo.” The rest of this language is worth reprinting:
The cost of such equipment requires federal guidance and oversight. In addition, the federal government should develop RAD/NUC detection devices with a stand-off capability in order to provide detection without directly impacting small vessel operators. The federal government should also consider placing nuclear detection devices on commercial vessels in a partnership to increase the chance of detecting a nuclear device or nuclear material before it reaches a major U.S. port or population center. Lastly, the federal government needs to strengthen counter-proliferation initiatives with our foreign counterparts to prevent shipments of WMD, their delivery systems, or related materials from reaching the U.S. maritime domain.

January 30, 2008

Container Security Accuracy Questioned

Filed under: International HLS,Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on January 30, 2008

GAO reports on how well the DHS Container Security Initiative (CSI) has contributed to strategic planning for supply chain security and strengthened overall container scanning operations.  It raises problems with the CSI concept of operations, but there is a way to improve this -- and its accruacy in targeting risky containers.

GAO praises CBP for following its earlier recommendations, but then drills into a core operational reality in the CSI program: limitations in evaluating inspections processes related to the accuracy and completeness of data collected. That data is essentially the main take for this program and its role in informing our targeting of high-risk cargo bound for the U.S. GAO goes on to suggest that if we don’t exercise better control over this aspect of CSI, the security value of the program declines pretty quickly.

Click image to view a conops of the CSI targeting process.

csi-conops.jpg

The net net of all this is that CBP “potentially lacks information to ensure that host government examinations can detect and identify weapons of mass destruction, which is important because containers are typically not reexamined in the United States if already examined at a CSI seaport.” Hold on here. The purpose of CSI is to bring added security through greater transparency in the maritime shipping domain. CSI does this by adding scrutiny to cargo traveling to the U.S., before it arrives in the U.S. (at the foreign CSI port). But if the scrutiny is conducted by host government authorities, that sure dials up the risk. In a sense, this brings us back to the concern over balancing throughput and security. The last thing we want to do is clamp down on the maritime trade to assure 100% security if that is done at the total expense of economic flows. However, too light of a touch on the system and we wind up adding false scrutiny without adding any value. Striking the right balance requires revisiting the way in which we look at the maritime domain. It is not only an avenue for sea-based cargo. It is one medium for five global flows: cargo, people, information, finances, and the conveyances themselves (ships in this case). Securing the U.S. by examining every piece of cargo is a sledgehammer approach that we should use if necessary, but a more surgical option would seek to knit together these five flows across the maritime domain, for example, to generate the kind of transparency and intelligence we seek with the container scanning conducted by foreign port authorities. Treating the information about cargo as a source of risk targeting limits our ability to identify the actual threat and it favors indiscriminate scrutiny that slows throughput without adding any real security. Generating and combining information on cargo in the context of the other four flows would provide an exponentially more accurate understanding of the true risk. Granted, CSI does not operate in a vacuum, but maximizing transparency – and therefore better informed risk targeting – can be more productive with a comprehensive approach that views the domain in a different way.

December 18, 2007

Global Maritime Data Sharing Gets $13M in Approps Bill

Filed under: Congress and HLS,Port and Maritime Security,Strategy — by Jonah Czerwinski on December 18, 2007
Congress included $13million for the Global Trade Exchange within the spending bill sent to the Senate last night. GTX is the third phase of an effort to bring better security and system visibility to the global maritime shipping supply chains. The bill reads as follows:
$13,000,000 shall be used to procure commercially available technology in order to expand and improve the risk-based approach of the Department of Homeland Security to target and inspect cargo containers under the Secure Freight Initiative and the Global Trade Exchange.
The Department issued an RFQ (thumbnail below) for this effort last week. Criticism of the effort usually revolves around the opaque nature in which it has evolved. Private sector operators whose information would theoretically populate a central data exchange express concern over the potential imposition on their supply chains that would come without sufficient benefit to their operations.

gtx-pilot-request-for-quotations.jpg

GTX has the potential to become a game-changing new dynamic between the public and private sector. However, much remains to be revealed in terms of the anticipated concept of operations that would create the appropriate mix of incentives to support private sector involvement. It is conceivable that if such a ConOps is crafted – including data privacy assurances, a durable governance framework, and shared risk, among other things – the kind of transparency that could be brought to the global maritime trade domain may generate a great advantage for our Homeland Security efforts to identify threats and for our maritime economic operators to identify and mitigate disruptions to their supply chains.

NOTE: Singapore is now the seventh international port to join an effort to test scanning capabilities geared toward preventing radioactive material from being smuggled via U.S.-bound shipping containers. Integrated scanning for these purposes includes radiation detection and X-ray imaging of 100 percent of maritime cargo headed to the U.S. This effort, part of the Secure Freight Initiative run jointly by DHS, Energy, and State, is in response to a Congressional mandate included in the SAFE Port Act. Other recently announced ports that signed up include Port Qasim (Pakistan), Puerto Cortés (Honduras), and the Port of Southampton (UK).

October 31, 2007

Maritime Security Programs Assessed in New Report from GAO

Filed under: Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on October 31, 2007
“Maritime Security: The Port Act: Status and Implementation One Year Later” was released yesterday by the GAO. The report assess several challenges DHS faces, including the 100% screening mandate, and makes recommendations to DHS to develop strategic plans, better plan the use of its human capital, establish performance measures, among other operational improvements. Top-level highlights are available here.

October 29, 2007

Secure Freight Initiative Recruits UK, Pakistan, Honduras

Filed under: International HLS,Port and Maritime Security,Radiological & Nuclear Threats — by Jonah Czerwinski on October 29, 2007
Port terminals at the UK, Pakistan, and Honduras are the first of a batch of countries to sign up for DHS’s current phase of the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). SFI screens US-bound maritime containers for nuclear or other radiological materials. It is unclear whether the agreements, protocols, equipment, and other requirements put in place to screen for nuclear threats will be put to use for other valuable security and trade purposes. SFI is part of the DHS response to fulfilling the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006, which requires non-intrusive scanning for nuclear material on 100% of all maritime containers headed for the U.S. Data from these inspection systems informs the National Targeting Center in its assessment of what seems threatening enough to warrant added scrutiny. SFI almost entirely focuses on the nuclear threat. Jay Ahern, CBP Deputy Commissioner, said "…preventing a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb attack has to be one of our highest priorities. This initiative (SFI) advances a comprehensive strategy to secure the global supply chain and substantially limits the potential for terrorist threats," said CBP Deputy Commissioner Jayson Ahern. The “comprehensive strategy to secure the global supply chain” suggests much more than just detecting smuggled nuclear material. Subsequent phases of SFI may reveal a more robust – and much needed – program to view the global supply chain more strategically. The tools being developed and put in place for the nuclear threat, including bilateral and multilateral agreements, can provide significant leverage for bringing more security to the global trade flows. Illicit trafficking – not only of nuclear material – is always a threat in some way to some legitimate party. And the transparency that a program like SFI could generate promises the potential to do much more that detect loose nucs. The kind of vulnerability these global flows confront carry with them a global concern for their resilience and protection, as well as their economic viability. Imagine if the Secure Freight Initiative and the Advanced Trade Data System were combined with the Proliferation Security Initiative. That would align many of the efforts and interests of DHS, DOD, DOE, State, and the Department of Commerce. It would also reflect a more “comprehensive” approach to a shared concern between the U.S. and her overseas partners – many of whom are reluctant partners – in securing global trade against both terrorism and general threats to economic efficiencies that these global flows attempt to maximize. NOTE: Thank you for accommodating my absence while I was away. HLSWatch is back up and running.

October 6, 2007

GAO Weighs In On SAFE Port Act

Filed under: Congress and HLS,Infrastructure Protection,Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on October 6, 2007
GAO released a statement this week on the SAFE Port Act. The Act covered a range of policies focused on maritime security, but may be best known for its mandate to scan 100% of all incoming maritime cargo. DHS is principally responsible for executing on the Act, but relevant component agencies include the U.S Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and the Transportation Security Agency. GAO delved into this one. They “visited domestic and overseas ports; reviewed agency program documents, port security plans, and post-exercise reports; and interviewed officials from the federal, state, local, private, and international sectors.” GAO’s recommendations focus on the need to develop strategic plans, better plan the use of DHS human capital, and establish performance measures. The programs addressed in this document can be organized as follows: safe-port-by-gao.jpg

2007 CBP Trade Symposium Scheduled

Filed under: Events,Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on October 6, 2007
CBP announced the dates of its 2007 trade symposium. To be held on November, 14th and 15th of November, topics include the following: • Cargo Security • Trade Issues • ACE / ITDS • Post-Incident Business Resumption • Global Issues

cbp-2007-trade-symposium.jpg

The Trade Symposium will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. CBP set up a website dedicated to the event at which updates can be found. I couldn’t find much more than this for the agenda: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 • Registration/Exhibition – 10:30am • Opening and Symposium Panels – 1:00pm – 5:30pm • Review Exhibits 5:30pm – 6:00pm • Open Forum with Senior Management – 6:00 pm – 8:00pm Thursday, November 15, 2007 • Continental Breakfast – 7:30am • Symposium Panels – 8:15am – 11:45am • Luncheon – 11:45am – 1:15pm • Symposium Panels – 1:30pm – 4:45pm • Closing Remarks – 4:45pm – 5:00pm

September 5, 2007

Nuclear Defense Reaches Out to Small Boats

Filed under: Port and Maritime Security,Radiological & Nuclear Threats — by Jonah Czerwinski on September 5, 2007

This is a placeholder post for lack of time today. DNDO and the Coast Guard announced today the West Coast Maritime pilot.  This effort builds upon the Securing the Cities initiative and the recent feat by DHS to outfit and train all Coast Guard boarding teams with nuclear detection capabilities. 

Seattle and San Diego made the list for this pilot due to the massive flow of small boats making use of these domains, the significant military installations there, and the proximity to international borders.

The main purpose of this new pilot is to create more effective coordination among the defensive efforts at the international, national, and state/local levels by creating a framework for the deployment of detection capabilities, training, response protocols, and alarm resolution.  Following is an excerpt from today's announcement:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) announced today the West Coast Maritime pilot program that will provide maritime radiation detection capabilities for State and local authorities in Washington’s Puget Sound and California’s San Diego areas. The three-year pilot program involves the development of a radiation detection architecture that reduces the risk of radiological and nuclear threats that could be illegally transported on recreational or small commercial vessels. The pilot will be conducted in close coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection.

July 25, 2007

New DHS Int’l Supply Chain Strategy

Filed under: Port and Maritime Security — by Jonah Czerwinski on July 25, 2007
This is just a placeholder to share the new DHS strategy document.  The International Supply Chain Security Strategy was recently shared with Congressional staff and is now available here.  supply-chain-strat-cover.jpg I'll come back to this soon for some comments.  In the meantime, enjoy the read.
Next Page »