May 24-25, 2010
NRECA Conference Center, Arlington, VA
Towards Seamless Interoperability and Trust
The Intersection between Homeland Security and Homeland Defense
http://www.ideea.com/SmartSecurity2010/
PARTNERSHIP FOR A SAFER SOCIETY
SEVENTY YEARS at the forefront of technology has taught us a thing or two. Such as how to develop cost-effective solutions that provide countries with the capabilities to protect themselves against various kinds of threats. But threat profiles are constantly evolving, and much of our work today concerns developing technology for the increasing demands for security in the civil sector. It’s about network-based solutions that improve flows or safeguard buildings. Solutions that enable threats to be discovered before they develop into catastrophes – and that provide the tools for handling crises more effectively. In brief – solutions for partnership. Partnership for a safer society.
SMART SECURITY 2010
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Schedule of Events 2 - 7
Sponsors 8
Speaker Biographies 10-16
Smart Security 2010 Management
Corporate Patrons
PLATINIUM
CSC
GOLD
SAAB
SILVER
UKTI
SPONSORS
OPERATIONAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
CHRISTINE ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES LLC INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY FORUM
WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM
SUPPORTERS
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES
COMMON DEFENSE QUARTERLY
Organizer:
IDEEA, Inc.
6233 Nelway Drive
McLean, VA 22101-3141
Tel: 703 760 0762 Fax: 703 760 0764
Individuals with disabilities requiring special
accommodations should contact Quentin
Whiteree at (703) 760 0762 at least two weeks
prior to the event.
Smart Security 2010 Handbook
Editor-in-Chief
Quentin Whiteree
Editor
Carole H. Whiteree
Marketing
Emma Lynch
S c h e d u l e o f E v e n t s
DAY ONE – MAY 24th, 2010:
0815-0830 WELCOME
Congressman Jim Moran
0830-0900 MULTI-AGENCY COLLABORATION; BEYOND 9/11 AT THE PENTAGON
James Schwartz, Fire Chief, Arlington County
Introduced by Mary Hynes, Arlington County Board
0900-0915 BREAK
0915-1015 SECURING THE NATION
Todd Keil, Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, U.S. DHS
Prof. Adam Ogilvie-Smith, Office for Security & Counter Terrorism, Home Office, UK
1015-1045 OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Dr. Thomas Cellucci, Chief Commercialization Officer, Science & Technology
Directorate, DHS
1045-1115 THE TECHNOLOGY OF TERROR
Aaron B. Fuller III, President, Enforcement, Security & Intelligence, N.American Public Sector, CSC
1115-1230 CYBERSECURITY AND THE PROTECTION OF THE HOMELAND
Don Kent, VP of Government Relations, Navigators Global LLC
Jenny Menna, Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection & Awareness and Global Cyber
Security, National Cyber Security Division, (NCSD), DHS
L. Russell Records, Chief Technology Officer, CENR, CSC
Dr. Peter Sharfman, Director, Policy Analysis, MITRE Corporation
Moderated by: Sam Visner, VP, Strategy and Bus. Dev., Enforcement, Sec. and Intel.
Division, CSC Page 5
Terry Shear
Homeland Security Sector Specialist
Tel: 202 588 6670
Email:terry.shear@fco.gov.uk
Ryan Nalty
Business Development Associate
Tel: 202 588 6691
Email: ryan.nalty@fco.gov.uk Page 6
SMART SECURITY 2010
1230-1400 LUNCHEON: KEYNOTE: TECHNOLOGY – LEADING THE WAY TOWARD A
SECURE FUTURE
Christine Wormuth, Principal Dep. Asst Sec for Homeland Defense DoD
1400-1430 HEART OF THE NATION – THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA
Maj.Gen. Kathleen Fick, Director of Intelligence, National Guard Bureau
Introduced by Vance Renfroe, President, Renfroe Associates International
1430-1500 POPULATION RESILIENCY
Brian Kamoie, JD, MPH, Senior Director for Preparedness Policy, National Security Staff, The White House
Introduced by Christine F. Robinson, Principal, Christine Robinson & Associates
1500-1615 ENABLING TECHNOLOGY FROM GOVERNMENT LABS
Hon. Jay M. Cohen, The Chertoff Group
Dr. Mark S. Maurice, Manager, International Programs, Air Force Research Laboratory
1615-1700 PEOPLE CENTRIC SECURITY – THE HUMAN SCIENCES
David E.A. Johnson, Executive Director, CADS
Rafi Sela, President, AR Challenges, Israel, United States & Canada
1700-1830 CONFERENCE RECEPTION
Martin O’Malley, Governor• Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor Department of Business and Economic Development
Mario Armstrong, NPR/CNN Tech Guru
DAY TWO – MAY 25th, 2010
0800-0830 KEYNOTE
Dennis Wisnosky, Chief Technical Officer & Chief Architect of Business Mission Area,
OSD, DCMO
0830-0900 EXPERIENCES FROM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
MGen. Gabriele Salvestroni, Def. & Def. Cooperation Attache, Embassy of Italy
0900-0930 HARNESSING GOVERNMENT & COMMERCIAL EXPERTISE
Jan Wiberg, Director of the Security Product Portfolio SAAB Security
Moderator: Rosemary Budd, President, Ft. Meade Alliance
0930-1000 TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS
David Shepherd, Program Manager, Threat Vectors Analysis, DHS
Stephen Swain, CEO, Security Innovation & Technology Consortium, Shrivenham, UK
Moderator: Rosemary Budd, President, Ft. Meade Alliance
1000-1030 FEDERATED IDENTITY
Daniel E. Turissini, CEO, Operational Research Consultants, Inc.
Moderator: Rosemary Budd, President, Ft. Meade Alliance
1030-1045 BREAK
1045-1215 DEVELOPING THE TOOLSETS FOR INTEROPERABILITY
Pisey Frederick, NTAC Fellow for National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)
John Osterholz, VP, Cyber Warfare & Cyber Security, BAE Systems
Riley Repko, Senior Advisor, Cyber Operations & Transformation for Air Force
Moderator: Nathaniel Palmer, Chief BPM Strategist, SRA International, Inc.Page 9
1230-1400 LUNCH – CYBER SECURITY IN THE AIR FORCE
LTGEN. William T. Lord, USAF, Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information
Officer, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
1400-1500 INTER-AGENCY, INTER-GOVERNMENT INFORMATION EXCHANGE:
PERSPECTIVES
INDUSTRY: Terry Morgan, Chairman, Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium
SECURITY: Peter Varnish, OBE, Geopolitical Solutions Ltd
1500-1600 BRIEFING: PROTECTION OF THE AIRSPACE
Patricia Craighill, Assistant Director, NEXTGEN JPDO & Special advisor to the SAF/XC
William Oliver, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air & Marine, DHS
S p e a k e r s
The real Al-Qaeda
Rosemary M. Budd, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton - North East (NE) Director – BRAC and Cybersecurity has 30+ years experience as a contractor in the U.S. Federal Government Intelligence and Defense Communities. She has a strong technical background in communications and networking for key mission systems. Rosemary is responsible for the Booz Allen implementation of NE BRAC and Cyber efforts. Ms. Budd earned M.S. and B.S. degrees in Computer Science from the University of Maryland. She serves as the President of the Ft. Meade Alliance (FMA), is Chairman of the FMA Executive Committee and Board of Directors; a member of the Board of Directors for the Maryland Tech Council and Central Maryland Regional Transit organizations. For the Central MD AFCEA chapter, Ms. Budd served as Vice President of Programs and Out- reach; and is a co-founder of the Women in Intelligence Group (WIIG). Ms. Budd is a member of the BWI Business Partnership.
Thomas A. Cellucci, PhD, MBA, accepted a five-year appointment from the Department of Homeland Security in August 2007 as the federal Government’s first Chief Com- mercialization Officer (CCO). He is responsible for initiatives that identify, evaluate and commercialize technology for the specific goal of rapidly developing and deploying products and services that meet the specific operational requirements of the DHS’s Operating Components and other DHS stakeholders such as First Responders and Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources owners and operators. Dr. Cellucci has also developed and continues to drive the implementation of DHS-S&T’s outreach with the private sector to establish and foster mutually ben- eficial working relationships to facilitate cost-effective and efficient product/service development efforts. This led to the establishment of the DHS-S&T Commercialization Office in October, 2008. Cellucci earned a PhD in Physical Chemistry from the University of Pennsylvania, an MBA from Rutgers University and a BS in Chemistry from Fordham University.
Hon. Jay M. Cohen, Rear Admiral, USN (ret.) was commissioned in 1968 upon graduation from the United States Naval Academy. He holds a joint Ocean Engineering degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Master of Science in Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture from MIT. Cohen was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral in October 1997 and reported to the Joint Staff as Deputy Director for Operations. In June 1999, he assumed duties as Director Navy Y2K Project Office responsible for transitioning all Navy computer systems into the new century. After an unprecedented five and a half year assignment as Chief of Naval Research, Rear Admiral Cohen retired from the Navy on February 1, 2006. Cohen was sworn in as Under Secretary for Science & Technology at the Department of Homeland Security (responsible for DHS Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) on August 10, 2006. Since leaving government, Rear Admiral Cohen is now a principal in The Chertoff Group, serves on numerous corporate boards and is CEO of JayMCohen LLC.
Pisey Fredrick was recently the NTAC Fellow for NIEM, NIEM, the National Information Exchange Model, is a partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. She has 11 years of experience in information technology, including seven years of experience using SOA/ Web Services Specification, such as XML Schema/XSLT/ SOAP/WS-Addressing/WSDL, in the implementation of Web/ SOA-based services. She has experience with various and related data model standards such as Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM), ANSI/NIST ITL, EFTS/EBTS, and NIEM. Ms. Frederick authored and implemented a biometric interface messaging format standard using XML/ SOAP technology, the US-VISIT (IDENT) Exchange Messages (IXM) Specification, an SOA-based standards application profile/GJXDM IEPD-based messaging structure. Ms. Frederick has her M.S. in software engineering from the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University and her B.S. in management information systems from the School of Commerce at the University of Virginia.
Aaron B. Fuller III is President of CSC’s Enforcement, Security and Intelligence (ESI) Group focused on high priority programs with an emphasis on sensitive information. Clients include intelligence agencies and programs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Justice, and others. ESI includes the Global Security Solutions (GSS) unit that provides security capabilities throughout CSC for both client delivery and internal systems. The NPS Identity and Privacy High Growth Market Segment and several CSC Centers of Excellence are hosted in ESI. Mr. Fuller joined CSC in April 1998, as a vice president. At BDM International (1991-1998) he was senior vice president and operating unit executive. He has served in senior management positions at General Research Corporation and Booz-Allen & Hamilton. From 1975-1980 he was a senior economist at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a Wash- ington, D.C. defense think tank. He has a BA from Claremont McKenna College (Claremont, CA) and an MA from the University of Virginia.
Mary Hynes, an Arlington County resident for more than 30 years, was elected to the Arlington County Board in November 2007. Previously, Ms. Hynes served on the Arlington School Board from 1995 to 2006, chairing it on three occasions. A cornerstone of Ms Hynes’ work as a member of the County Board is ensuring that Arlington County excels in its preparation, response and recovery from emergencies. In addition to protecting and providing for Arlington’s 200,000 residents and 240,000 workers, Arlington County is home to and has a special responsibility for responding to emergencies at government facilities such as Reagan National Airport and the Pentagon. Since joining the Arlington County Board, Ms. Hynes has worked with citizens and staff to revamp and enhance community involvement in preparedness.
LTC (Ret.) Dave Johnson is Executive Director of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington, DC. A former Army Special Forces Officer and Strategist, he is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, the Command and General Staff Course, and recipient of the Diplome des Etudes Superieurde Defense from the Joint Defense College (France). He has held a wide variety of command and staff positions on multiple overseas contingency operations, as well as providing support to Law Enforce- ment Agencies for counter-narcotics operations along the Southwest border of the United States. From 2006-2009, he was Director of Digital Security Products with Intel Corporation.
Brian Kamoie, JD, MPH, is Senior Director for Preparedness Policy on the White House National Security Staff. In this role he leads the development of national policy related to all-hazards preparedness, domestic critical infrastructure protection and population resiliency, preparedness grants, and national security professional development. Prior to this, Kamoie served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and Director of the Office of Policy, Strategic Planning & Communications at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Earlier, Kamoie was Associate Professor of Health Policy and Health Services Management and Leadership at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. He is a 2009 senior fellow of The George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, and continues to serve on the adjunct faculty as Associate Professorial Lecturer in the School of Public Health and Health Services. Kamoie received his bachelor’s degree in policy studies and political science from Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. and his law degree and master’s degree in public health from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C., where he served as managing editor of The George Washington Law Review.
Todd M. Keil was appointed in December 2009 by President Barack Obama to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. His office is responsible for protecting the assets of the United States essential to the nation’s security, public health and safety, economic vitality, and way of life. He brings to the national infrastructure protection mission more than 22 years of experience in global security operations and management, intelligence and law enforcement, and threat assessment and risk mitigation. His recent experience in private industry includes senior consulting in risk mitigation, executive and facility security, and worldwide threat management. Prior to this, Mr. Keil held several key positions at the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, including Regional Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Mr. Keil holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Criminal Justice from Ripon College in Ripon, Wisconsin. He has also studied at the University of Bonn in Germany and the American University in Washington, D.C.
Donald H. Kent Jr. is a vice president at Navigators Global, based out of the Washington, D.C. office. In this role, Mr. Kent provides strategic, policy, and communication counsel to corporations, associations and other clients as they work with the Department of Homeland Security on issues related to transporta-tion, security, cyber, technology, emergency management, and immigration, among others. Prior to joining Navigators, Mr. Kent served as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to his work at DHS, Mr. Kent spent 8 years on Capitol Hill working in senior positionsincluding Policy Advisor and Director of Transportation Policy for the Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Don Nickles (R-OK). For his service to DHS, Mr. Kent received the Secretary’s Award from Secretary Mi- chael Chertoff, the Meritorious Public Service Award from the United States Coast Guard Commandant
Admiral Thad Allen, and a distinguished service award from Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary Julie Myers. Mr. Kent graduated from Roanoke University in 1995 with a double major in criminal justice and sociology. Lt. Gen. William T. Lord is the Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. General Lord leads five directorates and two field operating agencies consisting of more than 1,000 military, civilian and contractor personnel sup- porting a portfolio valued at $17 billion. He integrates Air Force warfighting and mission support capabilities by networking space, air and terrestrial assets. Additionally, he shapes doctrine, strategy, and policy for all communications and information activities while driving standards and governance, innovation, and architectures for information systems and personnel. General Lord is a 1977 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. He holds a bachelor’s degree in biological and life sciences, and master’s degrees in business administration and national resource strategy.
Dr. Mark Maurice is Director of the International Office at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) in Arlington, VA. Mark is also the Vice- President International for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and is a member of their Board of Directors. From 1980 to 1993, Mark worked in the Air Vehicles Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, developing non-intrusive aero-diagnostics. In 1993, he became the Chief of Aeronautical Engineering at the European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, in London, UK, and served as a scientific liaison between AFRL and those doing similar research in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Former Soviet Union. In 1997, Mark returned to Air Vehicles Directorate for a two-year assignment as the Assistant to the Chief Scientist. Mark received his Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Dayton, in 1992.
Congressman James P. Moran was first elected in 1994 and is currently carrying out his tenth term as U.S. Representative from Northern Virginia. A senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Congress- man Moran Chairs the Subcommittee on the Interior and Environment and also serves on the Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittees. In the mid-1990’s, Congressman Moran co-founded the New Democratic Coalition, a group of approximately 75 middle of the road House Democrats committed to fiscal responsibility, free and fair trade, technology, and maintaining America’s security and economic competitiveness. As a member of the powerful Ap- propriations Committee, Jim has left his mark on the region by boosting investments in federal research and development, steering federal dollars to generate defense and technology jobs in Northern Virginia. Jim graduated from the University of Pittsburgh’s Gradu- ate School of Public and International Affairs with a master’s degree in Public Administration in 1970 after receiving a B.A. in Economics from the College of the Holy Cross in 1967.
Terry Morgan is the Director, Net-Centric Strategy for Cisco System’s Global Government Solutions Group (GGSG) and currently serves as the Chairman Emeritus, Executive Council, Network Centric Operation Industry Consortium. He has been Cisco’s Executive Council member since the NCOIC was established in 2005. He combines his military background with 15 years busi- ness experience to provide leadership and direction in developing the GGSG’s business model, processes and solutions. He represents Cisco at the executive-levels of government, alliances, standards bodies, associations and industry events. He is working with the NCOIC leadership team on the Consortium’s business model, processes and solutions to insure the NCOIC is a trusted partner and delivers on its goal of industry and govern- ment collaboration to accelerate the adoption of network centric capability. Previously, he spent 24 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is a graduate of the U. S. Army War College, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and NATO Staff Officer’s course.
Prof. Adam Ogilvie-Smith spent 13 years working in intelligence at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the Cabinet Office, during which time he participated in the US International Visitor Program, studying “US-European Security Issues”. Adam has since worked for KPMG, Racal and now Thales. In 2009, he became the first secondee from industry in the Office for Security & Counter-Terrorism, part of the Home Office, where his role is to foster greater collaboration between Government and industry in the fields of security and counter-terrorism. Adam is a member of the Euro- pean Security Research & Innovation Forum (ESRIF), and the European Commission’s FP7 Security Advisory Group. He also has 18 years’ experience as a special constable (volunteer police officer) in the Gloucestershire Constabulary. Adam has a BSc in Mathematics & Statistics from Edinburgh University, an MBA from the Open University, and a Diploma in Company Direction from the Institute of Directors. He is an honorary pro- fessor at the Aberdeen Business School, part of Robert Gordon University.
John Osterholz is Vice President, Cyber Warfare and Cybersecurity, BAE Systems, Inc. John is responsible for integrating the application of cyber warfare and cyberse- curity capabilities across BAE Systems, Inc to success- fully address the U.S. and allied cyberspace market. Prior to assuming his current responsibilities, he was the Vice President/General Manager for C4ISR Systems, BAE Systems Inc. John was the Department of Defense senior executive responsible for development of the Global Information Grid architecture and its key programs, before joining BAE Systems in 2004. Prior to that, he held other executive leadership positions including director, Military Satellite Office; director, C4ISR Integration Support Activity; deputy director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); and assistant director, White House Military Of- fice. Preceding his Washington assignments, John served in special operations and intelligence as a U.S. Army officer. John holds a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Rutgers University and a master’s degree in Information Systems from The George Washington University.
Nathaniel Palmer is a Principal and Chief BPM Strategist with SRA International, Inc. as well as Editor-in-Chief of BPM.com and Executive Director of the Workflow Management Coalition. Previously he was Director, Business Consulting for Perot Systems Corp, working under business process guru Jim Champy, and prior to that spent over a decade with Delphi Group as Vice President and Chief Analyst. In 1998 Mr. Palmer was the first individual to be awarded the distinction of Laureate in Workflow. He is co-author of “The X-Economy: Profiting from Instant Commerce” (Texere, 2001) as well as contributing author to “The BPM and Workflow Handbook,” “Mastering the Unpredictable” (Meghan-Kiffer Press, 2010) “BPM in Practice,” and “The Encyclopedia of Database Systems” (Springer, 2009.) He has been featured in publications ranging from Fortune to The New York Times, and has had over 100 by-lined articles in IT publications such as CIO and InformationWeek. He has also been featured as a guest expert on National Public Radio and World Business Review.
L. Russell Records is a Senior Partner with CSC Business Solutions and Services, and is now serving as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for CSC’s global Chemical, Energy, and Natural Resources Group. In this role, he is responsible for the architecture and construction of CSC’s Oil and Gas and Utilities solutions, including field business intelligence, cybersecurity for utilities, smart grid, and operations optimization. Prior to this assignment, he served as Regional Technology Director for the CSC Consulting’s Southwest Region since 1991. He has served several clients in the role of CTO, including most recently, the United Launch Alliance which manages the Atlas and Delta rocket launch programs for NASA and the Air Force. Mr. Records is a 1971 graduate of the Air Force Academy and received a Masters Degree from MIT in Instrumentation and Control Engineering. He is a long-term member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and has served as a Drilling/Well Control Engineer in a number of US and overseas assignments, working for a leading petroleum engineering firm.
Riley Repko is the Senior Advisor for Cyber Operations & Transformation at the Department of the Air Force. In this position he overseas existing cyber programs and policies and developing new transformational strategies paramount to supporting the Air Force’s directed priorities in air, space and cyber operations. He serves as a functional expert collaborating with the Depart- ment of Defense, federal government organizations and the private-sector on how to effectively integrate cyber capabilities with current operational forces. He establishes and maintains essential relationships, specific lines of communication and critical processes that ensure continued success across the Air Force operational enterprise. Mr. Repko earned bachelor of science degrees in physics and electrical engineering from St Bonaventure University and the Air Force Institute of Technology respectively and a masters in business administration from St Mary’s University (Texas). He is also a graduate of the Air Force’s Air War College.
Christine Robinson heads the business and technology advisory firm, Christine Robinson & Associates, LLC, drawing upon her career-long background of performing senior leadership roles for outstanding technology firms. From small initiatives to some of the world’s largest, her business and technology solutions for U.S. government agencies and other organizations emphasize security. She co-authored the widely publicized paper “Transforming Security through Enterprise Architecture” to publish in the “2010 BPM & Workflow Handbook” in June, the recently published book “Future Cities, Designing Better, Smarter, More Sustainable and Secure Cities,” and has also written for numerous other publications. Her thought leadership and creativity have led her to win awards for innovation and excellence, inspire government procurements, and even help pass congressional legislation and funding. Christine cur- rently serves on the Arlington County IT Advisory Commission. Christine graduated with her BBA from the University of Texas at San Antonio and graduated with her MBA from George Washington University.
Major General Gabriele Salvestroni is currently the Italian Defense and Defense Cooperation Attache at the Embassy of Italy in Washington DC. M.G. Salvestroni graduated from the Italian Airforce Academy in 1979 and after basic jet and fighter training in the U.S. at Vance (OK) and Holloman (NM), he has served as a pilot in the air defense role flying F104s. After test pilot school in UK he was assigned to the flight test wing which he commanded in 1999. After flying duty he was assigned to the AirStaff where he was involved in research, development and acquisition for all major cooperation programs. Promoted to Brigadier General in 2005 he was chief of logistic department in the Airstaff.
James Schwartz is the Chief of the Arlington County Fire Department in Arlington, Virginia. Chief Schwartz has been with Arlington Fire for 26 years and was appointed Chief in June 2004. Prior to his appointment he served in a variety of fire department positions including Assistant Chief for Operations, responsible for all response-related activities, including fire, EMS, hazardous materials and technical rescue response, incident management and operational training. In April, 2003 he was assigned to the Office of the County Manager where he served as the Director of Emergency Management until his appointment to Fire Chief. Chief Schwartz chairs the International Association of Fire Chiefs’ Committee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. He is a member of the Interagency Board on Equipment Standardization and he serves on the Advisor Council for the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordinating Group at the National Counter Terrorism Center.
Rafi Sela is President of AR Challenges, LTd. (Israel) & AR Challenges (USA), Inc. Mr. Sela is a former Co-Chairman of the US Airport Security Task force at HSIA – Homeland Security Industries Association (USA) & founder & former President of the ILHSIA – Israeli Homeland Security Industries Association. He currently manages teaming projects between Israeli Homeland Security companies and their counterparts in North America, India and SE Asia, and has extensive Defense and Security business development experience in North America and Europe for over 30 years. Mr. Sela served in the IDF for 20 years as a senior Ordnance Officer specializing in product development for the Special operations. (Including the design and manufacturing of the equipment for the Entebbe raid). He is married with three children and four grandchildren.
Peter Sharfman is Director of Policy Analysis for the MITRE Corporation. MITRE is a not-for-profit company specializing in information technology that operates Federally Funded Re- search and Development Centers (FFRDCs) for the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community; the Federal Avia- tion Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Veterans’ Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. At MITRE, Dr. Sharfman works issues where national security policy and information technology intersect. Before joining MITRE in 1989, he worked at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; OSD Net Assessment; the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; and Cornell University. He received a B.A. from Harvard and an M.A. and Ph.D. (in political science) from the University of Chicago.
David Shepherdis a program manager at the Chemical-Biolog- ical Division within DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate. He manages the Threat Vectors Analysis program, a program focused on biosecurity which includes the Biodefense Knowledge Center (BKC) project as well as projects intended to provide criti- cal information to decision-makers and DHS senior staff. Hisareas of interest and expertise involve biological threat awareness and analysis, emergency preparedness and response, and knowledge and information management. He has been working at DHS S&T for five years, after working as a support contractor at DARPA. He has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and master’s degrees in telecommunications and history.
Steve Swain is the CEO of the Security Innovation and Technology Consortium (SITC), a role he started in June 2008. Prior to this he was a consultant with Control Risks, an international risk consultancy. He joined them in September 2006 after retiring as a Chief Superintendent in the MPS. His last post was the Head of the Police International Counter Terror- ist Unit (PICTU), a national police and MI5 unit, with responsibility for designing counter terrorist policing options for the UK. He worked with MI5, Special Branch and the Anti-Terrorist Branch to produce as- sessments of the national intelligence picture. Steve is a leading authority on suicide terrorism and the architect of the UK tactics to counter the threat from international and domestic terror groups. He was part of the U.K. team working with the Greek Authorities on the security of the Athens Olympics. He spent time in Beijing performing a similar function for the 2008 Olympics. During his police career he worked at Heathrow Airport where he had responsibility for the airport counter-terrorist policing.
Dan Turissini co-founded Operational Research Consultants, Inc. in 1991. An innovator in systems engineering and integration he has focused ORC in the field of Information Assurance and Identity Management, providing integration & testing, operation & maintenance, and R&D for all aspects of Information Security. He has achieved Certificate Authority certifications across the Federal government, providing trusted eGovernment authentication capability and successful deployments of Federal Personal Identity Verification credentials for various Federal agencies. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Engineering and Nautical Science from the US Merchant Marine Academy and a Masters in Engineering Administration from George Washington University.
Peter Varnish, O.B.E; FREng; FIET; is an independent electronics and weapons engineer specialising in defence and security technologies advising corporates and Governments [Australia; Singapore; UAE; Morocco; Senegal; Bulgaria] in the threat, resilience, offset; technology transfer, mergers and acquisitions. He recently advised the UK Foreign Office on business continuity. His particular interests include cyber warfare; data mining; border control especially Counter-IED, and passive tracking. He began his career with the Royal Navy Scientific Service in 1968 and after 33 years in HM Government Service retired from the board of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, [now QinetiQ] to join Definition International Limited as Chairman. He is also director of Geopolitical Solutions Ltd a technology audit company; and Closed Solutions Ltd who provide advice to Middle and Far East Governments and a nonexecutive director of a number of Homeland security SME’s, and BlueStar Capital.
Samuel Sanders Visneris Vice President for Strategy and Business Development at CSC, where he also leads CSC’s cyber strategy. Mr. Visner served previously as Senior Vice President for Strategy and Business Development at SAIC. Mr. Visner was Chief of Signals Intelligence Programs at the National Security Agency where he led several transformational programs. Mr. Visner also teaches as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University where he conducts a course on the effects on international security of information technology. Mr. Visner currently serves as a member of the Intelligence Task Force of the Defense Science Board and as part of the Global Reserve Program of the National Intelligence Council, which he supports on the issues of cybersecurity and cybercrime. Mr. Visner holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Politics from Georgetown University and a Master’s degree in Telecommunications from George Washington University.
Jan Wibergis Director of the Security Product Portfolio at Saab. He is former Chairman (Chair Emeritus) of NCOIC Technical Council leading the technical work of the Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium. He started off by serving in surveillance in the Swedish Airforce, He holds a Master of Science degree in Industrial Electronics and Computer Science. Jan has close to 30 years of progressive and diverse experience in the Military Defense industry focusing on computer and information technology in the area of C4ISR. His experience today includes both civil security and government homeland security in EU countries, as well as military ship programs for Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, UAE and Pakistan. He has held progressively more responsible management positions in a number of companies, including Ericsson, Bofors and the Swedish National Police Board. Dennis Wisnosky is the Chief Architect and Chief Technical Officer of the Business Mission Area within the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, U.S. Department of Defense. Mr. Wisnosky is responsible for providing expert guidance and oversight in the design, development, and modification of the federated architectures supporting the Department’s Business Mission Area. This role incorporates oversight of the DoD Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) - the corporate level systems, processes, and data standards that are common across the DOD, in addition to the business architectures of the services and de- fense agencies. Mr. Wisnosky also serves as an advisor on the development of requirements and extension of DoD net-centric enterprise services in collaboration with the office of the DOD Chief Information Officer.
Christine E. Wormuth is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs. As Principal Deputy, she advises the Assistant Secretary of Defense on the homeland defense activities of the Department and regional security matters for the countries of the Western Hemisphere. In addition, she is responsible for management of the Department’s participation in interagency activities concerning homeland security and relations with the Department of Homeland Security. In 2007, she served as the staff director for the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, also known as “The Jones Commission.” Ms. Wormuth began her public service career in the Policy Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1996 through 2002. She entered government as a Presidential Management Intern and received a Masters of Public Policy from the University of Maryland. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in political science and fine art from Williams College and is a member of Women in International Security.
Dig:
Quote from: Dig on May 01, 2010, 03:44:14 AM
Are YOU One of the 8 Million Targeted for Roundup?
UPDATE: Brits Amass Giant DB Too
by ohmproject
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/20/21950/7576/933/518756
Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:27 AM PDT
cross posted at The Ohm Project: an exercise in resistance
Senior government officials have leaked detailed information about a database of 8 million Americans targeted for detention in case of a declared national emergency.
Called "Main Core," the database's origins date back to the 1980s when the Reagan administration began its "Continuity in Government" planning. The Bush administration stepped up the effort to the point that even John Ashcroft and his deputy, James Comey objected on constitional grounds, leading to the dramatic confrontation between Ashcroft and Comey on on side and Alberto Gonzales (then Bush's lawyer) and Andrew Card on the other as Ashcroft lay critically ill in an intensive care unit.
Christopher Ketcham reports in the latest issue of RADAR:
According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, "There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived 'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously." He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.
How do you get on the list? Ketcham reports that the software used makes predictive judgments of targets' behavior and tracks their circle of associations with "social network analysis" and artificial intelligence modeling tools." The data that serves as the basis of these predictions includes financial information collected from banks, credit card companies and credit agencies, the fruits of the government's illegal wiretapping and email surveillance, data gathered from private sources like ISPs and cell phone companies. A partial list of the data:
The following information seems to be fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core database.
Smaller, targeted "enemies lists" are included: no-fly list (now nearing 500,000), border scrutiny list (750,000 nearly a year ago) and people on a list created by a Pentagon project targeting antiwar and environmental groups. These much smaller lists grow to 8 million because of the "social networking" factor. If you've emailed or called someone on those lists, you get added to the master list.
Ketcham has reviewed previous lists created by FEMA (under whose authority all this take place) and the FBI, and finds that diversity rules. Typically, one finds "dissidents and activists of various stripes, political and tax protesters, lawyers and professors, publishers and journalists, gun owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a great many other harmless, average people."
Enemies lists and mass roundups are nothing new in American history. Lincoln employed them during the Civil War. FDR put the Japanese in detention camps. J. Edgar Hoover had his lists.
But the Main Core programs roots trace back to Reagan, and more specifically, to Iran-Contra figure, Oliver North. North was involved in the creation of REX-84, a martial law plan that would have suspended the constitution, rounded up 400,000 illegal aliens and unknown numbers of American citizens and placed them in detention camps set up at military bases. When Texas Congressman Jack Brooks attempted to question North about the plans at the Iran-Contra hearings, even his fellow Congressmen shut him off.
Rex-84 tools included PROMIS, a database program that North used to track dissidents' movements in the 80s. The program was never halted. Instead, it went into turboboost after 9/11.
These new leaks revealed by Ketcham are an opportunity to push for a Congressional investigation of marital law plans. Peter DeFazio and Bernie Thompson have requested detailed information about "Continuity of Government" plans, but, incredibly, have been rebuffed by DHS and the Bush administration.
Congress has itself been complict, enacting a number of laws since 9/11 that make such data gathering, targeting and detention easier. The 2002 NORTHCOM funding bill included a provision allowing military adminstration in the U. S. in times of declared emergency. The 2006 Military Commissions Act suspended habeas corpus for declared enemy combatants, even American citizens. And the 2006 Warner Defense Act allows deployment of military forces even in the case of natural emergencies. John Yoo claimed in a 2002 memo that the 4th Amendment would have no application to military forces deployed on U. S. soil. Current AG Mukasey refused to disavow Yoo's memo when he testified before Congress last month.
This is the current state of things:
If Bush or any other President declares a state of emergency because of a terrorist attack, assassination, natural disaster or large scale protests, millions of Americans will be targeted. It may be a letter in the mail or a phone call requiring them to come to a local government office to register and answer questions. It may be a knock on the door from local or federal law enforcement officials wanting to have a little chat. Or it may be a squad of Marines busting down the door, shooting first and asking questions later.
Are you one of the 8 million?
UPDATE:
For our skeptics who look down their noses at the source, here's another report today about the UK's plan to amass a similar database. This from the London Times (yes, I know who owns it):
A massive government database holding details of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.
The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police and security services would be able to access it if given permission from the courts.
The proposal will raise further alarm about a "Big Brother" society, as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57 billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘Big Brother’ database for phones and e-mails
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece
Richard Ford May 20, 2008
A massive government database holding details of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.
The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police and security services would be able to access it if given permission from the courts.
The proposal will raise further alarm about a “Big Brother” society, as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57 billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.
Home Office officials have discussed the option of the national database with telecommunications companies and ISPs as part of preparations for a data communications Bill to be in November’s Queen’s Speech. But the plan has not been sent to ministers yet.
Industry sources gave warning that a single database would be at greater risk of attack and abuse.
Jonathan Bamford, the assistant Information Commissioner, said: “This would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Holding large collections of data is always risky - the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen.”
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Given [ministers’] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people’s sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to our security, than a support.”
The proposal has emerged as part of plans to implement an EU directive developed after the July 7 bombings to bring uniformity of record-keeping. Since last October telecoms companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for 12 months. That requirement is to be extended to internet, e-mail and voice-over-internet use and included in a Communications Data Bill.
Police and the security services can access the records with a warrant issued by the courts. Rather than individual companies holding the information, Home Office officials are suggesting the records be handed over to the Government and stored on a huge database.
One of the arguments being put forward in favour of the plan is that it would make it simpler and swifter for law enforcement agencies to retrieve the information instead of having to approach hundreds of service providers. Opponents say that the scope for abuse will be greater if the records are held on one database.
A Home Office spokesman said the Bill was needed to reflect changes in communication that would “increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data and use it to protect the public”.
Quote from: Dig on May 01, 2010, 03:44:14 AM
Are YOU One of the 8 Million Targeted for Roundup?
UPDATE: Brits Amass Giant DB Too
by ohmproject
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/20/21950/7576/933/518756
Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:27 AM PDT
cross posted at The Ohm Project: an exercise in resistance
Senior government officials have leaked detailed information about a database of 8 million Americans targeted for detention in case of a declared national emergency.
Called "Main Core," the database's origins date back to the 1980s when the Reagan administration began its "Continuity in Government" planning. The Bush administration stepped up the effort to the point that even John Ashcroft and his deputy, James Comey objected on constitional grounds, leading to the dramatic confrontation between Ashcroft and Comey on on side and Alberto Gonzales (then Bush's lawyer) and Andrew Card on the other as Ashcroft lay critically ill in an intensive care unit.
Christopher Ketcham reports in the latest issue of RADAR:
According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, "There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived 'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously." He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.
How do you get on the list? Ketcham reports that the software used makes predictive judgments of targets' behavior and tracks their circle of associations with "social network analysis" and artificial intelligence modeling tools." The data that serves as the basis of these predictions includes financial information collected from banks, credit card companies and credit agencies, the fruits of the government's illegal wiretapping and email surveillance, data gathered from private sources like ISPs and cell phone companies. A partial list of the data:
The following information seems to be fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core database.
Smaller, targeted "enemies lists" are included: no-fly list (now nearing 500,000), border scrutiny list (750,000 nearly a year ago) and people on a list created by a Pentagon project targeting antiwar and environmental groups. These much smaller lists grow to 8 million because of the "social networking" factor. If you've emailed or called someone on those lists, you get added to the master list.
Ketcham has reviewed previous lists created by FEMA (under whose authority all this take place) and the FBI, and finds that diversity rules. Typically, one finds "dissidents and activists of various stripes, political and tax protesters, lawyers and professors, publishers and journalists, gun owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a great many other harmless, average people."
Enemies lists and mass roundups are nothing new in American history. Lincoln employed them during the Civil War. FDR put the Japanese in detention camps. J. Edgar Hoover had his lists.
But the Main Core programs roots trace back to Reagan, and more specifically, to Iran-Contra figure, Oliver North. North was involved in the creation of REX-84, a martial law plan that would have suspended the constitution, rounded up 400,000 illegal aliens and unknown numbers of American citizens and placed them in detention camps set up at military bases. When Texas Congressman Jack Brooks attempted to question North about the plans at the Iran-Contra hearings, even his fellow Congressmen shut him off.
Rex-84 tools included PROMIS, a database program that North used to track dissidents' movements in the 80s. The program was never halted. Instead, it went into turboboost after 9/11.
These new leaks revealed by Ketcham are an opportunity to push for a Congressional investigation of marital law plans. Peter DeFazio and Bernie Thompson have requested detailed information about "Continuity of Government" plans, but, incredibly, have been rebuffed by DHS and the Bush administration.
Congress has itself been complict, enacting a number of laws since 9/11 that make such data gathering, targeting and detention easier. The 2002 NORTHCOM funding bill included a provision allowing military adminstration in the U. S. in times of declared emergency. The 2006 Military Commissions Act suspended habeas corpus for declared enemy combatants, even American citizens. And the 2006 Warner Defense Act allows deployment of military forces even in the case of natural emergencies. John Yoo claimed in a 2002 memo that the 4th Amendment would have no application to military forces deployed on U. S. soil. Current AG Mukasey refused to disavow Yoo's memo when he testified before Congress last month.
This is the current state of things:
If Bush or any other President declares a state of emergency because of a terrorist attack, assassination, natural disaster or large scale protests, millions of Americans will be targeted. It may be a letter in the mail or a phone call requiring them to come to a local government office to register and answer questions. It may be a knock on the door from local or federal law enforcement officials wanting to have a little chat. Or it may be a squad of Marines busting down the door, shooting first and asking questions later.
Are you one of the 8 million?
UPDATE:
For our skeptics who look down their noses at the source, here's another report today about the UK's plan to amass a similar database. This from the London Times (yes, I know who owns it):
A massive government database holding details of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.
The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police and security services would be able to access it if given permission from the courts.
The proposal will raise further alarm about a "Big Brother" society, as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57 billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘Big Brother’ database for phones and e-mails
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece
Richard Ford May 20, 2008
A massive government database holding details of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.
The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police and security services would be able to access it if given permission from the courts.
The proposal will raise further alarm about a “Big Brother” society, as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57 billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.
Home Office officials have discussed the option of the national database with telecommunications companies and ISPs as part of preparations for a data communications Bill to be in November’s Queen’s Speech. But the plan has not been sent to ministers yet.
Industry sources gave warning that a single database would be at greater risk of attack and abuse.
Jonathan Bamford, the assistant Information Commissioner, said: “This would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Holding large collections of data is always risky - the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen.”
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Given [ministers’] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people’s sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to our security, than a support.”
The proposal has emerged as part of plans to implement an EU directive developed after the July 7 bombings to bring uniformity of record-keeping. Since last October telecoms companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for 12 months. That requirement is to be extended to internet, e-mail and voice-over-internet use and included in a Communications Data Bill.
Police and the security services can access the records with a warrant issued by the courts. Rather than individual companies holding the information, Home Office officials are suggesting the records be handed over to the Government and stored on a huge database.
One of the arguments being put forward in favour of the plan is that it would make it simpler and swifter for law enforcement agencies to retrieve the information instead of having to approach hundreds of service providers. Opponents say that the scope for abuse will be greater if the records are held on one database.
A Home Office spokesman said the Bill was needed to reflect changes in communication that would “increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data and use it to protect the public”.
Dig:
Quote from: Sane on September 10, 2009, 04:30:00 AM
Operation Garden Plot Documents Published
http://www.infowars.com/operation-garden-plot-documents-published/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 9, 2009
The governmentattic.org website has posted four declassified documents on Operation Garden Plot, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Infowars has yet to read the documents — in total, the documents are over a thousand pages.
Download PDF documents:
USArmyCivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1991.pdf
ArmyCivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1978.pdf
USAF-ROP355-10_GardenPlot_1968.pdf
DA-CivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1968.pdf
“Operation Garden Plot is a general U.S. Army and National Guard plan to respond to major domestic civil disturbances within the United States. The plan was developed in response to the civil disorders of the 1960s and is now under the control of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). It provides Federal military and law enforcement assistance to local governments during times of major civil disturbances,” according to a Wikipedia write-up.
Operation Garden Plot is a subprogram of Rex 84 Program, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, the military’s plan to impose martial law and intern dissidents and others in an undisclosed number of concentration camps. The existence of Rex 84 was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987 and reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987.
Frank Morales comments on Operation Garden Plot:
Ominously, many assume that the training of military and police forces to suppress “outlawed” behavior of citizens, along with the creation of extensive and sophisticated “emergency” social response networks set to spring into action in the event of “civil unrest”, is prudent and acceptable in a democracy. And yet, does not this assumption beg the question as to what civil unrest is? One could argue for example, that civil disturbance is nothing less than democracy in action, a message to the powers-that-be that the people want change. In this instance “disturbing behavior” may actually be the exercising of ones’ right to resist oppression. Unfortunately, the American corporate/military directorship, which has the power to enforce its’ definition of “disorder”, sees democracy as a threat and permanent counter-revolution as a “national security” requirement.
The elite military/corporate sponsors of Garden Plot have their reasons for civil disturbance contingency planning. Lets’ call it the paranoia of the thief. Their rationale is simple: self-preservation. Fostering severe and targeted “austerity”, massive inequality and unbridled greed, while shifting more and more billions to the generals and the rich, the de-regulated “entities of force” and their interlocking corporate directors know quite well what their policies are engendering, namely, a growing resistance. Consequently, they are systematically organizing to protect their interests, their profits, and their criminal conspiracies. To this end, they are rapidly consolidating an infrastructure of repression designed to “suppress rebellion” against their “authority”. Or more conveniently put, to suppress “rebellion against the authority of the United States.” And so, as the Pentagon Incorporated increases its imperialist violence around the world, the chickens have indeed come home to roost here in America in the form of a national security doctrine obsessed with domestic “insurgency” and the need to pre-emptively neutralize it. Its’ code-name: “Garden Plot”.
Morales wrote the above prior to September 11, 2001, before “everything changed.” Since 9/11. the government has enacted a number of draconian laws to complement Operation Garden Plot, most notably the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and the Military Commissions Act. On May 9, 2007, George W. Bush signed PDD 51 into law. The directive allows the president to declare a national emergency and take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus assume total and unprecedented dictatorial power.
Quote from: Sane on September 10, 2009, 04:30:00 AM
Operation Garden Plot Documents Published
http://www.infowars.com/operation-garden-plot-documents-published/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 9, 2009
The governmentattic.org website has posted four declassified documents on Operation Garden Plot, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Infowars has yet to read the documents — in total, the documents are over a thousand pages.
Download PDF documents:
USArmyCivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1991.pdf
ArmyCivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1978.pdf
USAF-ROP355-10_GardenPlot_1968.pdf
DA-CivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1968.pdf
“Operation Garden Plot is a general U.S. Army and National Guard plan to respond to major domestic civil disturbances within the United States. The plan was developed in response to the civil disorders of the 1960s and is now under the control of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). It provides Federal military and law enforcement assistance to local governments during times of major civil disturbances,” according to a Wikipedia write-up.
Operation Garden Plot is a subprogram of Rex 84 Program, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, the military’s plan to impose martial law and intern dissidents and others in an undisclosed number of concentration camps. The existence of Rex 84 was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987 and reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987.
Frank Morales comments on Operation Garden Plot:
Ominously, many assume that the training of military and police forces to suppress “outlawed” behavior of citizens, along with the creation of extensive and sophisticated “emergency” social response networks set to spring into action in the event of “civil unrest”, is prudent and acceptable in a democracy. And yet, does not this assumption beg the question as to what civil unrest is? One could argue for example, that civil disturbance is nothing less than democracy in action, a message to the powers-that-be that the people want change. In this instance “disturbing behavior” may actually be the exercising of ones’ right to resist oppression. Unfortunately, the American corporate/military directorship, which has the power to enforce its’ definition of “disorder”, sees democracy as a threat and permanent counter-revolution as a “national security” requirement.
The elite military/corporate sponsors of Garden Plot have their reasons for civil disturbance contingency planning. Lets’ call it the paranoia of the thief. Their rationale is simple: self-preservation. Fostering severe and targeted “austerity”, massive inequality and unbridled greed, while shifting more and more billions to the generals and the rich, the de-regulated “entities of force” and their interlocking corporate directors know quite well what their policies are engendering, namely, a growing resistance. Consequently, they are systematically organizing to protect their interests, their profits, and their criminal conspiracies. To this end, they are rapidly consolidating an infrastructure of repression designed to “suppress rebellion” against their “authority”. Or more conveniently put, to suppress “rebellion against the authority of the United States.” And so, as the Pentagon Incorporated increases its imperialist violence around the world, the chickens have indeed come home to roost here in America in the form of a national security doctrine obsessed with domestic “insurgency” and the need to pre-emptively neutralize it. Its’ code-name: “Garden Plot”.
Morales wrote the above prior to September 11, 2001, before “everything changed.” Since 9/11. the government has enacted a number of draconian laws to complement Operation Garden Plot, most notably the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and the Military Commissions Act. On May 9, 2007, George W. Bush signed PDD 51 into law. The directive allows the president to declare a national emergency and take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus assume total and unprecedented dictatorial power.
Dig:
Here is the agenda, all cyberspace will be controlled by deception...this is their blueprint for the future...
Quote from: Dig on July 13, 2011, 08:08:27 PM
A Framework for Deception
by Fred Cohen, Dave Lambert, Charles Preston, Nina Berry, Corbin Stewart, and Eric Thomas
http://all.net/journal/deception/Framework/Framework.html
[HUGE RESEARCH PROJECT PLEASE READ ALL OF IT HERE]
Executive Summary
This paper overviews issues in the use of deception for information protection. Its objective is to create a framework for deception and an understanding of what is necessary for turning that framework into a practical capability for carrying out defensive deceptions for information protection.
References
[1] Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", (Translated by James Clavell), Dell Publishing, New York, NY 10036 (1983).
[2] David Kahn, "The Code Breakers", Macmillan Press, New York, 1967
[3] Robert E. Huber, "Information Warfare: Opportunity Born of Necessity", News Briefs, September-October 1983, Vol. IX, Num. 5, "Systems Technology" (Sperry Univac) pp 14-21.
[4] Tom Keaton, "A History of Warfare", Vintage Books, NY, 1993
[5] Robert W. Mitchell and Nicholas S. Thompson, "DECEPTION: Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceipt", SUNY Press, 1986, NY.
[6] Andrew Wilson, "The Bomb and The Computer", Delacorte Press, NY, 1968.
[7] Field Manual 90-02: Battlefield Deception, 1998.
[8] Bart Whaley, "Stratagem: Deception and Surprise in War", Cambridge: MIT Center for International Studies. 1969
[9] James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi, "Victory and Deceipt: Dirty Tricks at War", William Morrow and Co., New York, NY, 1995.
[10] Colonel Michael Dewar, "The Art of Deception in Warfare", David and Charles Military Books, 1989.
[11] Knowledge Systems Corporation, "C3CM Planning Analyzer: Functional Description (Draft) First Update", RADC/COAD Contract F30602-87-C-0103, December 12, 1987.
[12] William L. Griego, "Deception - A 'Systematic Analytic' Approach", (slides from 1978, 1983)
[13] Gordon Stein, "Encyclopedia of Hoaxes", Gale Research, Inc, 1993, p. 293.
[14] Chuck Whitlock, "Scam School", MacMillan, 1997.
[15] Fay Faron, "Rip-Off: a writer's guide to crimes of deception", Writers Digest Books, 1998, Cinn, OH.
[16] Bob Fellows, "Easily Fooled", Mind Matters, PO Box 16557, Minneapolis, MN 55416, 2000
[17] Thomas Gilovich, "How We Know What Isn't So: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life", Free Press, NY, 1991
[18] Charles K. West, "The Social and Psychological Distortion of Information", Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1981.
[19] Al Seckel, "The Art of Optical Illusions", Carlton Books, 2000.
[20] Donald D. Hoffman, "Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See", Norton, 1998, NY.
[21] Diana Deutsch, "Musical Illusions and Paradoxes", Philomel, La Jolla, CA 1995.
[22] Chester R. Karrass, "The Negotiating Game", Thomas A. Crowell, New York, 1970.
[23] Robert B. Cialdini, "Influence: Science and Practice", Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2001.
[24] Richard J. Robertson and William T. Powers, Editors, "Introduction to Modern Psychology, The Control-Theory View". The Control Systems Group, Inc., Gravel Switch, Kentucky, 1990.
[25] David Lambert, "A Cognitive Model for Exposition of Human Deception and Counter-deception" (NOSC Technical Report 1076 - October, 1987). [Main Table]
[26] Charles Handy, "Understanding Organizations", Oxford University Press, NY, 1993. img35.jpg
[27] National Research Council, "Modeling Human and Organizational Behavior", National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1998.
[28] Robert Greene, "The 48 Laws of Power", Penguin Books, New York 1998
[29] Various documents, A list of documents related to MKULTRA can be found over the Internet.
[30] Richards J. Heuer, Jr., "Psychology of Intelligence Analysis", History Staff Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency 1999.
[31] Aldert Vrij, "Detecting Lies and Deceipt", Wiley, New York, NY, 2000.
[32] Bill Cheswick, An Evening with Berferd, 1991. - ALSO - Bill Cheswick, Steve Bellovin, Diana D'Angelo, and Paul Glick, "An Evening with Berferd" - followed by S. M. Bellovin. "There Be Dragons". Proceedings of the Third Usenix UNIX Security Symposium. Baltimore (September 1992).
[33] F. Cohen, Operating System Protection Through Program Evolution Computers and Security 1992.
[34] F. Cohen, "Internet Holes - Internet Lightning Rods", Network Security Magazine, July, 1996.
[35] F. Cohen, A Note On Distributed Coordinated Attacks, Computers and Security, 1996.
[36] F. Cohen, "A Note on the Role of Deception in Information Protection", Computers and Security 1999.
[37] Fred Cohen, "The Unpredictability Defense", Managing Network Security, April, 1998.
[38] Fred Cohen, "Method and Aparatus for Network Deception/Emulation", International Patent Application No PCT/US00/31295, Filed Octoboer 26, 2000.
[39] F. Cohen, "A Mathematical Structure of Simple Defensive Network Deceptions", 1999, http://all.net (InfoSec Baseline Studies).
[40] Scott Gerwehr, Jeff Rothenberg, and Robert H. Anderson, "An Arsenal of Deceptions for INFOSEC (OUO)", PM-1167-NSA, October, 1999, RAND National Defense Research Institute Project Memorandum.
[41] Scott Gerwehr, Robert Weissler, Jamison Jo Medby, Robert H. Anderson, Jeff Rothenberg, "Employing Deception in Information Systems to Thwart Adversary Reconnaissance-Phase Activities (OUO)", PM-1124-NSA, Novermber 2000, RAND National Defense Research Institute.
[42] Fred Cohen, "Deception Toolkit", March, 1998
[43] Norbert Weiner, "Cybernetics", 1954?
[44] Fred Cohen, "Simulating Cyber Attacks, Defenses, and Consequences", IFIP TC-11, Computers and Security, 1999.
[45] Kalbfleisch, Pamela J. The language of detecting deceit. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, Dec94, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p469, 28p, 1 chart [Provides information on the study of language strategies that are used to detect deceptive communication in interpersonal interactions. Classification of the typology; Strategies and implementation tactics; Discussions on deception detection techniques; Conclusion.]
[46] Fred Cohen, "The Structure of Intrusion and Intrusion Detection", May 16, 2000, http://all.net/ (InfoSec Baseline Studies)
[47] National Technical Baseline, "Intrusion Detection and Response", Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, December, 1996
[48] Fred Cohen Cynthia Phillips, Laura Painton Swiler, Timothy Gaylor, Patricia Leary, Fran Rupley, Richard Isler, and Eli Dart, "A Preliminary Classification Scheme for Information System Threats, Attacks, and Defenses; A Cause and Effect Model; and Some Analysis Based on That Model", The Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, 1999.
[49] Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, "Military Intelligence Blunders", Carol & Graf, NY, 1999
[50] John Keegan, "A History of Warfare", Vintage Books, NY 1993.
[51] Donald Danial and Katherine Herbig, ed. "Strategic Military Deception", Pergamon Books, 1982.
[52] Charles Mackay, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", Templeton Publications, 1989 (originally Richard Bently Publishers, London, 1841)
[53] Western Systems Coordinating Council WSCC Preliminary System Disturbance Report Aug 10, 1996 - DRAFT [This report details the August 10, 1996 major system disturbance that separated the Western Systems Coordinating Council system into 4 islands, interrupting service to 7.5 million customers for periods ranging from several minutes to nearly six hours.]
[54] Bob Pekarske. Restoration in a Flash---Using DS3 Cross-connects, Telephony. September 10, 1990. [This paper describes the techniques used to compensate for network failures in certain telephon switching systems in a matter of a millisecond. The paper points out that without this rapid response, the failed node would cause other nodes to fail, causing a domino effect on the entire national communications networks.]
[55] Heidi Vanderheiden, Boston University "Gender swapping on the Net?", http://web.aq.org/~tigris/loci-virtualtherapy.html
[56] Mimi Ito, "Cybernetic Fantasies: Extended Selfhood in a Virtual Community", 1993.
[57] Mark Peace, "Dissertation: A Chatroom Ethnography", May 2000
[58] Daniel Chandler, "Personal Home Pages and the Construction of Identities on the Web", 2001
[59] SSCSD Tactical DecisionMaking Under Stress
[60] The HoneyNet Project web site (www.honeynet.org).
[61] Fred Cohen, "Red Teaming and Other Agressive Auditing Techniques", Managing Network Security", March, 1998.
MORE, PLEASE RESEARCH
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/85915/Riddle.pdf?sequence=1
12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/12th_ICCRTS/CD/html/papers/207.pdf
A PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR MODELING AND SIMULATION INTERNATIONAL
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.113.1238&rep=rep1&type=pdf
ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014
www.its.dot.gov/strategic_plan2010_2014/index.htm
Policing on the Global Scale
http://anti-politics.net/distro/download/policing.doc
Development and command-control tools for many-robot systems (pre-9/11)
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/Cyber/Robotics/Documents/Publications/1995/spie2593p121.pdf
Dig:Here is the agenda, all cyberspace will be controlled by deception...this is their blueprint for the future...
Quote from: Dig on July 13, 2011, 08:08:27 PM
A Framework for Deception
by Fred Cohen, Dave Lambert, Charles Preston, Nina Berry, Corbin Stewart, and Eric Thomas
http://all.net/journal/deception/Framework/Framework.html
[HUGE RESEARCH PROJECT PLEASE READ ALL OF IT HERE]
Executive Summary
This paper overviews issues in the use of deception for information protection. Its objective is to create a framework for deception and an understanding of what is necessary for turning that framework into a practical capability for carrying out defensive deceptions for information protection.
References
[1] Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", (Translated by James Clavell), Dell Publishing, New York, NY 10036 (1983).
[2] David Kahn, "The Code Breakers", Macmillan Press, New York, 1967
[3] Robert E. Huber, "Information Warfare: Opportunity Born of Necessity", News Briefs, September-October 1983, Vol. IX, Num. 5, "Systems Technology" (Sperry Univac) pp 14-21.
[4] Tom Keaton, "A History of Warfare", Vintage Books, NY, 1993
[5] Robert W. Mitchell and Nicholas S. Thompson, "DECEPTION: Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceipt", SUNY Press, 1986, NY.
[6] Andrew Wilson, "The Bomb and The Computer", Delacorte Press, NY, 1968.
[7] Field Manual 90-02: Battlefield Deception, 1998.
[8] Bart Whaley, "Stratagem: Deception and Surprise in War", Cambridge: MIT Center for International Studies. 1969
[9] James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi, "Victory and Deceipt: Dirty Tricks at War", William Morrow and Co., New York, NY, 1995.
[10] Colonel Michael Dewar, "The Art of Deception in Warfare", David and Charles Military Books, 1989.
[11] Knowledge Systems Corporation, "C3CM Planning Analyzer: Functional Description (Draft) First Update", RADC/COAD Contract F30602-87-C-0103, December 12, 1987.
[12] William L. Griego, "Deception - A 'Systematic Analytic' Approach", (slides from 1978, 1983)
[13] Gordon Stein, "Encyclopedia of Hoaxes", Gale Research, Inc, 1993, p. 293.
[14] Chuck Whitlock, "Scam School", MacMillan, 1997.
[15] Fay Faron, "Rip-Off: a writer's guide to crimes of deception", Writers Digest Books, 1998, Cinn, OH.
[16] Bob Fellows, "Easily Fooled", Mind Matters, PO Box 16557, Minneapolis, MN 55416, 2000
[17] Thomas Gilovich, "How We Know What Isn't So: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life", Free Press, NY, 1991
[18] Charles K. West, "The Social and Psychological Distortion of Information", Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1981.
[19] Al Seckel, "The Art of Optical Illusions", Carlton Books, 2000.
[20] Donald D. Hoffman, "Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See", Norton, 1998, NY.
[21] Diana Deutsch, "Musical Illusions and Paradoxes", Philomel, La Jolla, CA 1995.
[22] Chester R. Karrass, "The Negotiating Game", Thomas A. Crowell, New York, 1970.
[23] Robert B. Cialdini, "Influence: Science and Practice", Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2001.
[24] Richard J. Robertson and William T. Powers, Editors, "Introduction to Modern Psychology, The Control-Theory View". The Control Systems Group, Inc., Gravel Switch, Kentucky, 1990.
[25] David Lambert, "A Cognitive Model for Exposition of Human Deception and Counter-deception" (NOSC Technical Report 1076 - October, 1987). [Main Table]
[26] Charles Handy, "Understanding Organizations", Oxford University Press, NY, 1993. img35.jpg
[27] National Research Council, "Modeling Human and Organizational Behavior", National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1998.
[28] Robert Greene, "The 48 Laws of Power", Penguin Books, New York 1998
[29] Various documents, A list of documents related to MKULTRA can be found over the Internet.
[30] Richards J. Heuer, Jr., "Psychology of Intelligence Analysis", History Staff Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency 1999.
[31] Aldert Vrij, "Detecting Lies and Deceipt", Wiley, New York, NY, 2000.
[32] Bill Cheswick, An Evening with Berferd, 1991. - ALSO - Bill Cheswick, Steve Bellovin, Diana D'Angelo, and Paul Glick, "An Evening with Berferd" - followed by S. M. Bellovin. "There Be Dragons". Proceedings of the Third Usenix UNIX Security Symposium. Baltimore (September 1992).
[33] F. Cohen, Operating System Protection Through Program Evolution Computers and Security 1992.
[34] F. Cohen, "Internet Holes - Internet Lightning Rods", Network Security Magazine, July, 1996.
[35] F. Cohen, A Note On Distributed Coordinated Attacks, Computers and Security, 1996.
[36] F. Cohen, "A Note on the Role of Deception in Information Protection", Computers and Security 1999.
[37] Fred Cohen, "The Unpredictability Defense", Managing Network Security, April, 1998.
[38] Fred Cohen, "Method and Aparatus for Network Deception/Emulation", International Patent Application No PCT/US00/31295, Filed Octoboer 26, 2000.
[39] F. Cohen, "A Mathematical Structure of Simple Defensive Network Deceptions", 1999, http://all.net (InfoSec Baseline Studies).
[40] Scott Gerwehr, Jeff Rothenberg, and Robert H. Anderson, "An Arsenal of Deceptions for INFOSEC (OUO)", PM-1167-NSA, October, 1999, RAND National Defense Research Institute Project Memorandum.
[41] Scott Gerwehr, Robert Weissler, Jamison Jo Medby, Robert H. Anderson, Jeff Rothenberg, "Employing Deception in Information Systems to Thwart Adversary Reconnaissance-Phase Activities (OUO)", PM-1124-NSA, Novermber 2000, RAND National Defense Research Institute.
[42] Fred Cohen, "Deception Toolkit", March, 1998
[43] Norbert Weiner, "Cybernetics", 1954?
[44] Fred Cohen, "Simulating Cyber Attacks, Defenses, and Consequences", IFIP TC-11, Computers and Security, 1999.
[45] Kalbfleisch, Pamela J. The language of detecting deceit. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, Dec94, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p469, 28p, 1 chart [Provides information on the study of language strategies that are used to detect deceptive communication in interpersonal interactions. Classification of the typology; Strategies and implementation tactics; Discussions on deception detection techniques; Conclusion.]
[46] Fred Cohen, "The Structure of Intrusion and Intrusion Detection", May 16, 2000, http://all.net/ (InfoSec Baseline Studies)
[47] National Technical Baseline, "Intrusion Detection and Response", Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, December, 1996
[48] Fred Cohen Cynthia Phillips, Laura Painton Swiler, Timothy Gaylor, Patricia Leary, Fran Rupley, Richard Isler, and Eli Dart, "A Preliminary Classification Scheme for Information System Threats, Attacks, and Defenses; A Cause and Effect Model; and Some Analysis Based on That Model", The Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, 1999.
[49] Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, "Military Intelligence Blunders", Carol & Graf, NY, 1999
[50] John Keegan, "A History of Warfare", Vintage Books, NY 1993.
[51] Donald Danial and Katherine Herbig, ed. "Strategic Military Deception", Pergamon Books, 1982.
[52] Charles Mackay, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", Templeton Publications, 1989 (originally Richard Bently Publishers, London, 1841)
[53] Western Systems Coordinating Council WSCC Preliminary System Disturbance Report Aug 10, 1996 - DRAFT [This report details the August 10, 1996 major system disturbance that separated the Western Systems Coordinating Council system into 4 islands, interrupting service to 7.5 million customers for periods ranging from several minutes to nearly six hours.]
[54] Bob Pekarske. Restoration in a Flash---Using DS3 Cross-connects, Telephony. September 10, 1990. [This paper describes the techniques used to compensate for network failures in certain telephon switching systems in a matter of a millisecond. The paper points out that without this rapid response, the failed node would cause other nodes to fail, causing a domino effect on the entire national communications networks.]
[55] Heidi Vanderheiden, Boston University "Gender swapping on the Net?", http://web.aq.org/~tigris/loci-virtualtherapy.html
[56] Mimi Ito, "Cybernetic Fantasies: Extended Selfhood in a Virtual Community", 1993.
[57] Mark Peace, "Dissertation: A Chatroom Ethnography", May 2000
[58] Daniel Chandler, "Personal Home Pages and the Construction of Identities on the Web", 2001
[59] SSCSD Tactical DecisionMaking Under Stress
[60] The HoneyNet Project web site (www.honeynet.org).
[61] Fred Cohen, "Red Teaming and Other Agressive Auditing Techniques", Managing Network Security", March, 1998.
MORE, PLEASE RESEARCH
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/85915/Riddle.pdf?sequence=1
12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/12th_ICCRTS/CD/html/papers/207.pdf
A PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR MODELING AND SIMULATION INTERNATIONAL
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.113.1238&rep=rep1&type=pdf
ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014
www.its.dot.gov/strategic_plan2010_2014/index.htm
Policing on the Global Scale
http://anti-politics.net/distro/download/policing.doc
Development and command-control tools for many-robot systems (pre-9/11)
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/Cyber/Robotics/Documents/Publications/1995/spie2593p121.pdf
Quote from: Femacamper on June 16, 2011, 05:20:22 AM
Can somebody briefly summarize the concept of red team / red cell?
Red Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Team
Red Team activity is any set of activities that deal with an unannounced assessment of security and readiness by an unfamiliar (to the target) team of operators with no awareness or support from the assessed target. The function of individuals engaged in this activity is to provide a unique understanding from a threat actor's point of view in a less contrived circumstance than through exercises, role playing, or announced assessments. Red Team activities may involve interactions that trigger active controls and countermeasures in effect within a given operational environment.
In wargaming, the opposing force or OPFOR in a simulated military conflict may be referred to as a red team and may also engage in Red Team activity, which is used to reveal weaknesses in military readiness. The key theme being that the aggressor is composed of various threat actors, equipment and techniques that are obscured from the defender's complete knowledge.
Some of the benefits of Red Team activities are that it challenges preconceived notions by demonstration; they also serve to elucidate the true problem state that planners are attempting to mitigate. Additionally, a more accurate understanding can be gained about how sensitive information is externalized, as well as highlight exploitable patterns and instances of undue bias with regard to controls and planning.
United States Army
In the US Army, Red Teaming is defined as: “structured, iterative process executed by trained, educated and practiced team members that provides commanders an independent capability to continuously challenge plans, operations, concepts, organizations and capabilities in the context of the operational environment and from our partners’ and adversaries’ perspectives.” (TRADOC News Service, July 13, 2005) [1]
The Army Red Team Leaders Course is conducted by the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS) at Fort Leavenworth. The target students are graduates of the U.S. Army CGSC or equivalent intermediate and senior level school (Major through Colonel, and Chief Warrant Officer 3/4/5 with MEL IV qualification or equivalent).
The Red Team Leader’s Course (RTLC) is graduate-level education of 720 Academic Hours (18 weeks) designed to effectively anticipate change, reduce uncertainty, and improve operational decisions. The typical academic day is 8 hours and the typical reading load is 250 pages per night.
The University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies was formed as an outgrowth of recommendations from the Army Chief of Staff's Actionable Intelligence Task Force. UFMCS, as an element of the TRADOC (DCSINT) Intelligence Support Activity, or TRISA, located at Fort Leavenworth, KS, is an Army directed education, research and training initiative for Army organizations and other joint and government agencies designed to provide a Red Teaming capability.
A UFMCS-trained Red Team is educated to look at problems from the perspectives of the adversary and our multinational partners, with the goal of identifying alternative strategies. The Red Team provides commanders with critical decision-making expertise during planning and operations. The team’s responsibilities are broad – from challenging planning assumptions to conducting independent analysis to examining courses of action to identifying vulnerabilities.
Red Team Leaders are expert in:
Analyzing complex systems and problems from different perspectives to aid in decision making using models of theory.
An analysis of the concepts, theories, insights, tools and methodologies of cultural and military anthropology to predict other’s perceptions of our strengths and vulnerabilities.
Applying critical and creative thinking in the context of the operational environment to fully explore alternatives to plans, operations, concepts, organizations, and capabilities.
Applying advanced analytical skills and techniques at tactical level through strategic level and develop products supporting command decision making and operational execution.
U.S. Joint Forces Commands' Joint Enabling Capabilities Command
Two operational positions associated with red teaming exist at the United States Joint Forces Command formerly called Blue Red Planners within the Standing Joint Force Headquarters (SJFHQs). These two positions, now called Red Team Leaders (RTLs) are designed to provide the Joint Task Force Plans and Operations Groups with insight into the adversary’s political and military objectives and potential course of action (COA) in response to real or perceived Blue action. RTLs are the leads of a RT Cell composed of operationally oriented experts that analyze Blue conditions-driven COA from an adversary-based perspective. The RT Cell also anticipates potential adversary responses to counter Blue COA and end-state objectives. The RT also identifies critical Blue vulnerabilities and potential operational miscues. The RT cell also assists in war gaming, COA development early in the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP). RTLs, in collaboration with the Combatant Commander's staff and Centers of Excellence, provide in-depth knowledge of the local political landscape, of the adversary’s history, military doctrine, training, political and military alliances and partnerships, and strategic and operational objectives. The RTLs will postulate the adversary’s desired end-state, and also, postulate what the adversary may surmise Blue’s desired end-state or objectives to be. Finally, the RTLs help identify, validate, and/or re-scope potential critical nodes identified through systems developed understanding of the operational environment.
United States Government
Red Teaming is normally associated with assessing vulnerabilities and limitations of systems or structures. Various watchdog agencies such as the Government Accountability Office and the National Nuclear Security Administration employ red teaming, sometimes with dramatic findings.
In exercises and war games, Red Teaming refers to the work performed to provide an adversarial perspective, especially when this perspective includes plausible tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) as well as realistic policy and doctrine.
Important cases
The FAA has been implementing Red Teams since the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Red Teams conduct tests at about 100 US airports annually. Tests were on hiatus after September 11, 2001 and resumed in 2003.[1]
The FAA use of red teaming revealed severe weaknesses in security at Logan International Airport in Boston, where two of the four hijacked 9/11 flights originated. Some former FAA investigators who participated on these teams feel that the FAA deliberately ignored the results of the tests and that this resulted in part in the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US.
Other examples include:
Billy Mitchell - a passionate early advocate of air power - demonstrated the obsolescence of battleships in bombings against the captured World War I German battleship Ostfriesland and the U.S. pre-dreadnought battleship Alabama.
Rear Admiral Harry E. Yarnell demonstrated in 1932 the effectiveness of an attack on Pearl Harbor almost exactly showing how the tactics of the Japanese would destroy the fleet in harbor nine years later. Although the umpires ruled the exercise a total success, the umpire's report on the overall exercises makes no mention of the stunning effectiveness of the simulated attack. Their conclusion to what became known as Fleet Problem XIII was surprisingly quite the opposite:
"It is doubtful if air attacks can be launched against Oahu in the face of strong defensive aviation without subjecting the attacking carriers to the danger of material damage and consequent great losses in the attack air force." [2]
ANYONE ELSE NOTICE A PATTERN BETWEEN THE PRE-PEARL HARBOR WARGAME TESTS/COVER UP AND THE PRE-9/11 WARGAME TESTS/COVER UP USING RED TEAMING?
BARRING A NEW PEARL HARBOR
PNAC!
Quote from: Sane on September 11, 2009, 01:25:39 PM
20,000 US troops to Support Yar’adua regime as Boko Haram claims al-Qaeda link
http://www.modernghana.com/print/234047/1/20000-us-troops-to-support-yaradua-regime-as-boko-.html
Nigeria is the sixth largest supplier of America's oil imports.
The United States is therefore prepared to deploy as many as 20,000 troops to shore up the Yar’adua regime and protect oil installations in response to any future crisis in which the Nigeria government is near collapse, and rival factions and rebels are fighting for control of the oil fields of the Niger Delta and vying for power, Huhuonline.com has learnt from US State Department sources.
Details of the plan that was designed to test how the United States would respond to a crisis in Nigeria – set in 2013 – were crafted last year at the Center for Strategic Leadership at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, as part of the army's annual war games to test the American military's ability to deal with the kind of crises that it might face in the near future. The US Army is propagating its assessment of an era of 'persistent conflict' around the globe through 'Unified Quest 2008', a series of seminars and war games sponsored by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).
As part of the Pentagon's plan to create a new military African command; or Africom, US military and intelligence officers, joined participants from the State Department and other US government agencies, and foreign military officers (including military representatives from several NATO countries, Australia, and Israel), along with the private military contractors who examined the list of options for the Nigeria scenario ranging from diplomatic pressure to military action, with or without the aid of European and African nations.
For the Nigerian scenario, a blue team, red team and green team played out the conflict.
The blue team represented the United States and its allies.
The red team represented the enemy, - a terrorist organization like Boko Haram or a rival tribe vying to overthrow the Nigerian government.
The green team acted as the populace caught in the crossfire.
[WHAT THE F*CK?!?!?!?!?!?!? "POPULACE CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE"?!?!?! DOES THE POPULACE HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT OF OUR RIGHT TO PROTECT AGAINST BEING "CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE" DURING A RED TEAM UNCONSTITUTIONAL DRILL?!?!?!?!]
One participant, US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Mark Stanovich, drew up a plan that called for the deployment of 20,000 US troops within 60 days, to shore up the Nigerian government. But this proposal was criticized by the former US ambassador to Fiji, Ambassador David Lyon who argued that direct US military intervention would send the wrong message about American support for an unpopular government which was the large part of the problem.
Ambassador Lyon’s position was echoed by Professor Sarah Sewall, of the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, who underscored the need for building partnership capacity with the African Union and countries like Ghana and South Africa to help the US Army formulate a comprehensive response strategy that would avoid putting US troops on the ground in Nigeria. Her view was shared by some of the army top brass who expressed reservations about the prospects of US troops fighting in the creeks of the Niger Delta. "If we have to put troops on the ground, something has failed," [DAMN STRAIGHT!] Lt. Col. John Miller, deputy chief of future warfare at the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) was quoted as saying.
Although the scenario was part of an exercise to plan US response to a fictional conflict set in Nigeria in 2013, and how to be better prepared for them, US State Department sources told Huhuonline.com that the Army's Chief of Staff, General George Casey, had briefed and signed-on President Barack Obama on the plan, which was presented to President Umaru Musa Yar’adua at talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her recent visit to Nigeria. Clinton’s visit came weeks after the violent crackdown on the extremist Islamic sect Boko Haram.
The violence claimed over 800 lives, including Mohammed Yusuf, the sect’s leader, killed in police custody. The group has declared a jihad in Nigeria, pledging loyalty to Osama bin Laden and threatening full scale attacks against what they called the “Yoruba, Igbo and Ijaw infidels.” "We have started a Jihad in Nigeria, which no force on earth can stop. The aim is to Islamize Nigeria and ensure the rule of the majority Moslems in the country. We will teach Nigeria a lesson, a very bitter one,” Boko Haram said in a statement.
According to a statement by Mallam Sanni Umaru, Boko Haram is not limited to Northern Nigeria. "In fact, we are spread across all the 36 states in Nigeria, and Boko Haram is just a version of the Al Qaeda, which we align with and respect. We support Osama bin Laden, we shall carry out his command in Nigeria until the country is totally Islamized, which is according to the wish of Allah," the group said.
The group added: "Mallam Yusuf has not died in vain and he is a martyr. His ideas will live forever… From the month of August, we shall carry out a series of bombings in Southern and Northern Nigerian cities, beginning with Lagos, Ibadan, Enugu and Port Harcourt. The bombings will not stop until Sharia is established and western civilization wiped off from Nigeria. We will not stop until these evil cities are tuned into ashes.
"We shall make the country ungovernable, kill and eliminate irresponsible political leaders of all leanings, hunt and gun down those who oppose the rule of Sharia in Nigeria and ensure that the infidel does not go unpunished.
With Boko Haram pledging its loyalty bin Laden and al-Qaeda and promising to make Nigeria ungovernable, the chickens appear to be coming home to roost for the Yar’adua regime and highlighting the prospects of full spectrum operations for “Unified Quest 2008” to be put in motion; including the use of Irregular Warfare, to establish persistent security within a strategic environment of persistent conflict like the Niger Delta.
The recommendations and lessons learned from “Unified Quest 2008” were crystallized and given directly to Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey as well as other Army leaders for their consideration as they plan for the Army's future, said Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, deputy director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, (ARCIC).
Quote from: Sane on December 20, 2009, 01:56:40 AM
W A K E U P !
Special operations forces battle local civilian government
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/17/special-operations-forces-battle-away-from-spotlig//print/
Thursday, December 17, 2009
David Axe and Bryan William Jones THE WASHINGTON TIMES
FORT IRWIN, Calif.
You rarely see them or read about them, but they're out there, fighting and sometimes dying. Soldiers, sailors and airmen from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) wage war under a cloak of secrecy. Their deployments are not announced. Few reporters ever visit the units. When they fight, the results often make the news, but the commandos' involvement is rarely fully explained.
It's possible to glimpse special operations forces (SOF) only at the fringes. Recently, SOCOM invited The Washington Times to observe a special operations forces training event at Fort Irwin, in the Mojave Desert just east of Los Angeles. Before shipping off to East Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines or other conflict zones, commando units run a gamut of exercises meant to prepare them for the rigors of combat. Fort Irwin, home of the U.S. Army's sprawling National Training Center, is one of the last stops.
The role of special operations forces has expanded significantly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as the U.S. military has gotten involved in an ever wider range of counterterrorism and nation-building operations. Since 2001, SOCOM's budget has tripled to nearly $10 billion annually. Last year, the Pentagon began an ambitious plan to add 13,000 new commandos to the existing 50,000-strong force.
More than 100 commandos have died in combat since 2001, not necessarily in Iraq or Afghanistan. In September, two SOF sergeants were killed when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle on Jolo Island in the Philippines. SOCOM has been training the Filipino military to suppress an Islamic insurgency.
Also in September, SOF ambushed and killed a Kenyan man suspected of ties to al Qaeda. Saleh Ali Nabhan was purported to have played a role in the 2002 bombing of a Kenyan hotel, among other terror acts. The Sept. 14 raid in Baraawe, in southern Somalia, reportedly involved as many as four SOF helicopters flying from a U.S. Navy ship. Official confirmation of the raid occurred only after international media had reported the presence of U.S. helicopters and soldiers in Somalia.
"The role of the SOF soldier is to train, engage and carry out operations that do not fall under the normal guise of military operations," one SOF major told The Times.
Like many of his colleagues, the major asked that his name not be printed. Commandos' missions might include "reconnaissance, direct action, counterterrorism and other unconventional warfare," the major continued. The missions typically are "clandestine [and] high-risk," he said.
At the National Training Center, exercise planners prepare simulations that attempt to mirror the complex conditions of a unit's actual destination. In October, elements of the 3rd Special Forces group, permanently based at Fort Bragg, N.C., spent several weeks at Fort Irwin "war-gaming" their upcoming deployment to an undisclosed location. Portions of the 1,000-square-mile National Training Center have been dressed to resemble Iraq; others are modeled on Afghanistan. With its wide expanses of desert ringed by low mountains, the center also resembles arid East Africa.
During one daytime training event, several 12-man groups of SOF troopers, called "A Teams," rolled into a simulated desert town in specially modified Humvees.
"A mobile can of whoop-ass," is how 3rd group Staff Sgt. Dennis Corey described the Humvee model. Compared to the standard version, the Special Operations Command Humvee carries more fuel and water for long-range missions and has extra attachment points for heavy weapons.
The simulated town of Medina Wasl, modeled on a semiurban Iraqi community, features authentic-looking buildings and vehicles. Scores of actors, some of them Arabic speakers, populate the town. Each follows a detailed script outlining the actor's background, job, motives and political affiliations.
Some portray innocent civilians,
local government,
media
and even aid workers.
Others are insurgents in disguise, required by their script to attack the civilians or U.S. forces.
Part of 3rd group's challenge in Medina Wasl was to "establish and influence relations between military and civil governmental and nongovernmental groups across the spectrum
from friendly to hostile areas of operations,"
according to 3rd group Capt. David Durante.
In this scenario, Medina Wasl turned out to be very hostile.
A small explosive charge simulating an improvised explosive device detonated alongside a Humvee, kicking up a tall dust cloud. "Insurgents" opened fire from windows, firing blanks from their AK-47s. The commandos fired back with their rifles and machine guns.
To lend a sense of mortal danger to the mock battle, all the weapons included a tiny laser gun fitted to the barrel. Every fired blank was accompanied by a burst of laser. Each participant wore a vest studded with laser-detecting sensors that beep when the wearer is "shot." For an extra dose of chaos, referees roamed Medina Wasl, firing a blue plastic laser pistol they call a "god gun," randomly killing or wounding commandos. Dead soldiers were required to sit out the rest of the battle. Commando medics evacuated and treated the "wounded" just as they would a real-life casualty.
In truth, 3rd group might see very little direct combat. While special operations forces occasionally orchestrate spectacular raids, such as that in Somalia in September, commandos spend most of their time on less dramatic but no less vital tasks. In Afghanistan, as in the Philippines, special operations teams represent the backbone of U.S. efforts to train local militaries. Capt. Durante called it the "blood-free" approach to winning wars, although even training teams sometimes get ambushed.
The commandos embrace even the seemingly boring aspects of waging America's wars.
The Medina Wasl exercise included staged interactions between 3rd group teams and local leaders.
"Humans are more important than hardware," Sgt. Corey said.
No comments:
Post a Comment