Since Slate was kind enough to cite my thoughts on Syria’s attendance at the Annapolis Conference in its daily feature Today’s Blogs I thought I might return the favor.
Yesterday Slate’s Hot Document section published a PowerPoint briefing given by the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center to a Department of Agriculture workshop on Animal & Plant Biosecurity. The document is unclassified, but For Official Use Only (which in practice means very little.)
This slide stuck out.
Cell phone smuggling is the sort of dual-use criminal activity that can both raise funds, but also increase a terrorist group’s other capabilities. Cell phones have been used as timers in bomb attacks, most notably in the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004. One of the attack’s ringleaders, Jamal Zougam, ran a cell phone shop (which supplied the devices). But practically speaking, IED timer is not the main use of cell phones.
Jimmy Breslin once wrote (I paraphrase) that criminals need two things – guns and stolen cars. That list can be up-dated to include many cell-phones. While they offer tremendous advantages for coordinating activities across time and distance (which is why so many of us are now attached to them) they can also be monitored by law enforcement. Spanish security services tracked the Madrid bombers through their cell phone activity.
Criminals of all sorts, such as neighborhood drug chiefs, go through large numbers of mobiles to evade surveillance. Al-Qaeda has also long been concerned about electronic surveillance of its communications. In September 1998, OBL stopped using his satellite phone. Before his training in Afghanistan, Ahmed Ressam’s voice had been recorded in nearly 400 conversations by Canadian security services – after his training Ressam (who planned to bomb LAX as part of al-Qaeda’s Millennium plot) used stolen phones and low-key personal meetings. Although they were aware of Ressam’s return to Canada and his probable intentions Canadian intelligence was no longer able to eavesdrop on his conversations.
Finally, the DHS briefing to the Department of Agriculture is quite sober. It discusses DHS’ structure and role, the nature and targets of the major terrorist threats to the United States. It examines recent terrorist activity in the United States and documents terrorist efforts to infiltrate U.S. critical infrastructure, while admitting that the government labors under incomplete information – which has occasionally sparked false alarms. Because it is a briefing for the Department of Agriculture it discusses possible plots against the U.S. agriculture. While granting that al-Qaeda training manuals discuss “agro-terrorism” DHS claims it has no credible information that any such attack is likely. This dovetails with my own assessment. An attack on the food supply would require substantial technical skills and access. But even if successful it would probably amount to little more than a big expensive hassle. Few would notice. This is not to say the U.S. should not monitor food safety (which has plenty of other, non-terrorist threats), but dramatic mass murder has been al-Qaeda’s preferred tool for attacking the psyche and soul of its enemies.
That being said – the slide on cell phone smuggling is an outlier and doesn’t seem to belong or be relevant to the Department of Agriculture’s areas of responsibility.
I’ve been busy as of late and have been wanting to comment on this post primarily because I just sat through a similar briefing put on by DHS for the private sector homeland security council. For the most part the briefing was focused on identifying IED’s in the workplace and recognizing surveillance.
The slide that describes the acquisition of cell phones was not included in our briefing, but was mentioned because some of the retailers present were in the cell phone business. I made the same assessment right away as to the use in bombing or for profit sales. In fact I was reminded of the case in which a Hezbollah cell was smuggling cigarettes for profit.
Recently DHS has been pushing so-called soft-power in attempt to educate the public about the threat of terrorism and the importance of emergency planning. The briefing given to the Dept. of Agriculture may fall into this category and the inclusion of the cell phone slide is usually included when explaining trends in terrorism. Unfortunately the briefing that I sat through was horrible and I sympathize with anyone who has to do this. As to the FOUO classification, it is still important to some of us charged with protecting classified materials.
Good comments, thanks.
Broadly speaking, DHS has not gotten great reviews from those who have interacted with it (with exceptions, such as the Coast Guard.) I thought this briefing overall looked solid, with a mix of big picture and info tailored to the audience.
The mobile phone briefing slide was extremely interesting, but I still think it is tough to see how much Department of Agriculture folks would get form it.
As for FOUO – I wrestled with posting or not – but it was already on Slate and elsewhere on the web so I didn’t think I’d be doing much harm. In an ideal world, FOUO would be taken seriously – our world falls very short of ideal.
I didn’t mean to sound critical of the posting of the slide. If it was taken that way I do apologize. I believe that the presentation and the accompanying slide show didn’t need to be labeled as FOUO. Such frivolous marking of information cheapens the classification system that the government uses and can cause problems down the road. The briefing I attended contained slide shows that were also marked FOUO for no apparent reason since the purpose of the conference was to educate the public. It was expected that those who attended would pass on the information to other employees in their business. I guess I should have articulated this point better. I will be making a digital copy of the handout that we received at the conference if anyone is interested. I find it prudent to analyze the governments attempts at education hoping that such analysis will improve it in the future.
酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店領檯,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,酒店兼職,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,酒店兼職,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,酒店傳播,酒店經紀人,酒店,酒店,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,禮服店 , 酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店,酒店,酒店經紀,酒店領檯 ,禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工, 酒店上班,禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工, 酒店上班,禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工, 酒店上班,