Hi-Tech-Consulting

“Bloomberg: Get Surveillance Cameras For Buses, Trains”
New York Daily News (10/03/07) ; Lucadamo, Kathleen; Donohue, Pete

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to install surveillance cameras on the city’s buses and trains. Bloomberg commented on the cameras after returning from a trip to London, which has cameras on every subway car and bus. Those cameras helped police identify the bombers who killed 52 people in a 2005 attack on the subway and helped prevent another bombing that July. “You don’t want to wait until 52 people are killed here and then say, ‘Oh, now it’s time to do it,’” said Bloomberg. “The trick is to learn by experiences, but it’s other people’s experience you’d like to learn by.” MTA officials say that they are exploring the potential installation of cameras on subway cars and are running a pilot program with cameras on 400 buses. MTA also has recently installed new cameras in 70 subway stations, and has a contract with Lockheed Martin to install an additional 2,000 new cameras in the network. Bloomberg is also promoting his “Ring of Steel” proposal, which would include over 3,000 cameras, license plate scanners, and metal barriers in the lower Manhattan area.
(go to web site)

It was blatantly obvious during the recent California wildfires that aerial attack of such fires is the most effective tool to get such remote fires under control quickly and efficiently. Knowing this, why don’t state and local governments band together to purchase such equipment on a large scale? 

While helicopters are precise they just can’t carry the amounts of water needed to attack very large fires over large areas. We all saw the news footage of the DC-10 and ‘Super-scoopers’ planes and how large an area they can cover. Again, why not take this concept and scale it up to instantly suppress very large fires and protect larger areas by pre-dropping water? 

Imagine, if you will, six C-130 aerial tankers flying in formation side by side and the area they could cover. Some say the winds are a problem and such aircraft would be a waste of money since they couldn’t be used in high winds such as we have here in California.

Please remember, the C-130 is a military aircraft designed for war time conditions. Also take note: the C-130 is used b researchers to fly into HURRICANES to gather data! Also I would guess that using more aircraft would allow them to fly higher and out of the wind.  The C-130 has a wing span of 132 feet so six flying side by side could potentially cover a path ¼ mile wide! And of course, twelve would cover over a half mile swath!  Some will say this would be too expensive. A brand new C-130J costs around $66.5 million. Fitting each with a tank and spraying apparatus might cost another $100,000.

So a complete fire fighting plane could cost $66.7 million and therefore six would be $400 million and twelve would be $800 million. A great deal of money yes, but the last fire cost us one billion dollars and counting.  Also keep in mind that $800 million for twelve planes would be a ONE TIME COST and such planes could be used for at least twenty years. There is also the option of purchasing very serviceable used planes (The C-130 is deployed by nearly every country in the world) at considerably reduced cost—probably half or less.  Further, why couldn’t such planes be used for other fires, even structure fires? And, while not fighting fires they could be used for other purposes such as flying relief supplies, evacuation, transport, etc., etc. 

Isn’t it time to start thinking out of the box and on a scale which this country is certainly capable of? We’re the richest country in the world and we fight fires with picks and shovels and fire hoses?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules   

“DHS Chemical Regulations Coming Soon to a Business Near You”
IndustryWeek (10/15/07) ; Lipchitz, Joseph D.

Ever since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, Congress has worried about monitoring so-called “high risk” chemicals that could be exploited by terrorists to produce explosives or poison gases. After struggling for more than a decade to regulate such chemicals without unduly interrupting commerce, Congress delegated to the oversight responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which published interim regulations directing its Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism standards in April 2007. The regulations define a “chemical facility” as any organization that owns a threshold quantity of chemicals labeled as potentially dangerous by DHS. Over 300 chemicals are listed in DHS’ “Proposed Appendix A: DHS Chemicals of Interest,” including acetone, chlorine, and sodium nitrate. Some of the chemicals on the list are commonly used in many industries. Once the final version of Appendix A is published, businesses that have threshold amounts of any of the chemicals listed will have two months to complete an online assessment using DHS’ Chemical Security Assessment Tool. The appraisal will enable DHS to rank facilities into four risk-based tiers. Businesses that fall into one of the upper three tiers will then have to develop security site plans and conduct security vulnerability assessments.
(go to web site)

“Cleveland School Shooting — Students Say Threats Not Taken Seriously”
Times Reporter (OH) (10/11/07) ; Milicia, Joe

The 14-year-old student behind the October 10 shooting at a Cleveland high school had a history of violent behavior and previously threatened suicide, according to juvenile court records. Asa Coon was placed in a juvenile facility after a domestic violence incident and threatened to commit suicide while staying in a mental health facility last year. Coon also was suspended from SuccessTech Academy last year after trying to physically harm a student. Although most of the 240 students at the school are black, authorities do not believe race was a factor in the attack by Coon, who is white. People that know him say Coon was an outcast at his school and was bullied by classmates. “He just couldn’t handle the kids always messing with him. I’m not justifying nothing and not saying he’s did the right thing, but his cries for help were just not heard,” said Joseph Fletcher, one of Coon’s neighbors. Parents are questioning how Coon managed to enter the school with weapons, especially since he was suspended on October 8 and a security guard is stationed on the first floor of the building. Although SuccessTech is equipped with metal detectors, students say they are used infrequently.
(go to web site)

Fraud Hits Four Out of Five Companies”
WebCPA.com (09/25/07) A recently released Kroll and Economist Intelligence Unit study reveals 80 percent of companies have experienced some form of fraud since 2004, and about 10 percent of large firms have lost over $100 million annually. In the healthcare and financial sectors, 20 percent of firms reported losing over $1 million to fraud. Many of the losses stemmed from property or stock-related fraud, but other causes included self-dealing, information theft, financial mismanagement, and other incidents. Thirty-two percent of executives surveyed indicated high employee turnover resulted in increased fraud exposure, and 31 percent cited complex technology arrangements as sources of fraud exposure.
(go to web site)

Lessons Learned from Virginia Tech
Could electronic security technology have helped minimize deaths? One expert believes the answer is yes

Patrick Fiel, ADT Security Services
SecurityInfoWatch.com
From Columbine in 1999 to Virginia Tech last April, each campus shooting provides critical lessons for school administrators and law enforcement about how they can best protect our nation’s schools, colleges and universities.
In a crisis situation, such as a gunman on campus, administrators and law enforcement should look to proven and established electronic security technologies as a tool to help prevent death and injury.
We must learn from each of these tragic shootings in hopes that we can prevent similar events on other campuses. After reviewing many cases, it is clear to me that electronic security technology can play a vital role in minimizing casualties.
The events at Virginia Tech serve as an example. There were no cameras at the entrances to any dormitories or classroom buildings on the campus last April 16 when Seung Hui Cho killed two people in a dormitory. More than two hours later he entered a classroom building and killed another 30 people and wounded 17 others before taking his own life.
According to official reports, Cho left the first two victims’ dormitory with his clothing covered with blood. He then returned to his own dorm room in another building.
A review of stored video images from cameras would have allowed investigators to review who entered and left the first dormitory around the time of the first shooting. Today’s high-resolution cameras and recorders would have helped to identify different characteristics of a potential suspect or suspects.
By reviewing video from other cameras, campus police could have spotted Cho entering his own dormitory. Entrance to the campus dorms requires a card key so the name on the card and time of entry would have been recorded in a computer. By matching the times on the camera and the access system, campus police could have put a name and a face on their suspect and could have potentially determined his location more quickly.
Cameras also could have been used to show whether or not the campus police department’s initial suspect - the first victim’s boyfriend -had entered the dormitory after dropping off the victim about 15 minutes before the shooting. Police sent more than an hour of critical time looking for him.
Had cameras been in place last April, they might have provided the necessary evidence to stop Cho after he had killed his first two victims.
There are also mass notification systems that are capable of almost instantly reaching thousands of people with valuable instructions or information during a crisis. Such systems allow administrators to use email, text and voice messages and pagers to reach students, faculty and staff. Since the shooting last spring, Virginia Tech has installed such a system.
And there are notification systems capable of delivering - within a quarter-mile radius - intelligible voice instructions for people outdoors during a crisis. Such a system was recently installed at Radford University, a small college 15 miles from Virginia Tech. By providing useable information, rather than just a siren or horn, these new communications systems give people specific information that can help reduce personal injury and limit property during a crisis.
The lesson I hope we learn from these tragic shootings is that video surveillance and mass communications systems have the ability to help prevent or reduce death and injury and should become a part of security plans for K-12 schools and colleges and universities.
About the Author: Patrick Fiel is the public safety advisor specializing in education for ADT Security Services. He brings more than 30 years of security experience to the position. For six years was executive director of school security of Washington, D.C. Public School System, where he managed 163 school campuses. During his tenure with the United States Army Military Police Corps, he had operational and management oversight roles with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the Pentagon, at NATO Headquarters - Belgium, and at West Point Military Academy.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/online/The-Latest/Lessons-Learned-from-Virginia-Tech/12662SIW306