It depends.

In 2008, Kurt William Havelock plotted a massacre outside the Sun Devil Stadium in Arizona, the location of that year’s Super Bowl. He mailed death threats to surrounding media outlets, saying things like “I will sacrifice your children upon the altar of your excess” and “it will be swift and bloody.” Mr. Havelock surrendered to local police and was convicted on six counts of mailing threatening letters.

Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Mr. Havelock, on the basis that threats to corporations are legal. According to the Judge William Canby, “the ‘person’ to whom the mail is addressed must be an individual person, not an institution or corporation.”

This decision is a miscarriage of justice and should have us all worried.

The vast majority of people making threats and carrying out their violent acts do not threaten individual targets, but rather they communicate via veiled threats (i.e. making broad sweeping threats about an organization, corporation, or any other group of people). Institutions including non-profits, religious groups, political groups, etc. are simply groups of individuals who have a connection with each other and equally suffer from threats as would any individual. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals makes a distinction between individuals and corporations where there should be none. The law is intended to protect all people from threats.

Timothy McVeigh was known for firing off angry letters to local papers with threats like “America is in serious decline. We have no proverbial tea to dump. Should we instead sink a ship of Japanese imports? Is a civil war imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it might.” He also rages on against “cataclysmic” taxes, self-serving and corrupt politicians and the disappearance of the “American Dream.” These threats were not against a specific person – but they ultimately resulted in the deaths of 168 people (19 of them children under the age of 6) when Mr. McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995.

Threats themselves are crimes and should be handled as such. Ultimately, “person-hood” vs. “organization” is not the real issue here – the issue is that making threats are illegal. Period.

Close the door. Lock it. Set the alarm.

This is how most people close up their summer homes. Yet an unprecedented amount of people fail to take the necessary steps to make sure that alarm system is functioning properly.

Here are some key tips about keeping your summer home safe:

Alarms are essentially “dumb” electronic devices that, like any other frequently used device, are prone to failure and have certain components that are more reliable than others. Have a professional check your alarm system on an annual basis. A trusted and experienced electronic security installer will be able to assess your system prior to closing the house up and determine if any part should be replaced in a preventative nature.

Alarms are good at one thing – alerting people that something may be amiss at your home. Equally important to the initial alarm is a response mechanism. Have a family friend or community contact that is available on short notice to come to the house to open the door for the police, to conduct an outside inspection and to look for environmental damage such as water, or excessive cold / hot temperatures. All of these problems can be detected by alarm systems and done so without a great deal of advanced technology, however, it is in the analysis and response to those signals where alarm systems offer their best value.

Fire is also a big risk to summer houses. Often times local fire departments are staffed by volunteers and have a long response rate. It’s important to make a thorough assessment of fire risk, both as to what equipment can be put in the house to prevent fire and also what kind of insurance coverage you should have in case a fire does occur in a closed summer house.

When building a new summer house consider installing a residential sprinkler system. Sprinklers can dramatically reduce the risk of fire. However, because sprinklers can not be turned off remotely or electronically, they can also be a source of water damage. Therefore, it is crucial when installing sprinklers to make sure that there is a robust system in place to respond to the home if the sprinkler is activated. Have a “human” response ready to step in and make sure the water valve is easily identifiable and accessible, even to strangers.

Electronic security is not the end of the security obligation. Homes must have strong locks which should be secured prior to closing. There may be extra deadbolt locks that are not used during the summer, make sure these locks are installed and locked prior to leaving the house. For houses that have large amounts of glass exposure, consider using security window film to make it more difficult to break through the glass and break into the house.

All of these steps will go a long way to ensuring that when you return next spring, your house will be in top shape and ready for the opening spring security check list.

Christopher T. Voss and Christopher Falkenberg

The Obama administration recently proposed to carve out an exception to the “Miranda Rule” for terrorists making it easier for law enforcement to work around these rights and try and extract vital information immediately, without potential suspect/attorney oversight.

As former federal law enforcement officials, you’d think we’d be in favor of it. We’re not.

First, Miranda warnings are irrelevant to the success of effective interrogators. Second, Miranda warnings, as now offered, are ineffective in advising criminal defendants of the downsides of speaking to the police.

As every viewer of television knows, Miranda warnings are issued by the police at the time of arrest and prior to questioning. This requirement arose out of the 1966 case Miranda v Arizona that made inadmissible admissions made by a criminal defendant unless that defendant had been advised by the police that he or she had the Fifth Amendment “right to remain silent” and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.

Our collective experience in law enforcement has taught us that Miranda is irrelevant. This issue, rather, is one of interrogator efficacy. Rapport-based interrogators who have the best track record of gaining reliable information deal with Miranda on a routine basis and it doesn’t inhibit their effectiveness.

As a society we are offended to be giving rights to those who would destroy our ability to give those rights in the first place. Our reaction is, “If you hate our system so much, why should you benefit from any of it?” Others say “What if they stop talking?” Suspects don’t stop talking due to Miranda. They stop talking due to poor interrogation. Miranda was designed to limit sloppy, coercive and illegal interrogations. If Miranda is an obstacle to any interrogator, they aren’t effective in the first place and the Miranda issue is a red herring.

A second issue is the relative ineffectiveness of the Miranda warnings in emboldening criminal defendants to resist police efforts at coercive interrogation. Studies show most people don’t understand the Miranda warning anyway. One study found 95% of college students wrongly believed that a confession would nullify their right to counsel. It’s also proven to be ineffective in helping to protect defendant’s rights in that the overwhelming majority of suspects waive their rights after being Mirandized.

The question then becomes “So if it’s irrelevant, and ineffective, why not drop it anyway?” The larger issue becomes how we treat terrorists affects how successful the recruiters for terrorism are. To defend this country we have to address the sources of terrorism. One of those sources is our image in the world to the undecided, and we cannot provide more evidence to the terrorist recruiters on which to base their perverted case that Islam compels jihad against the United States.

The truly evil enemies are the recruiters. They exploit the undecided and when we mistreat terrorist suspects we send the signal that either we don’t believe in our own system or we deny its benefits to outsiders. When we cast the rest of the world as outsiders we give the recruiters opportunity. The argument that we created more terrorists by water boarding than we stopped is a valid one.

Recruiters for terrorism literally danced in the streets when George W. Bush said America was on a “crusade.” It made Osama bin Laden so happy that he held his own press conference to celebrate. He knew that small word choice drove millions of Muslims around the world farther away from the US. Arabs and Muslims who are trying to support the US against extremism remain as sensitive to these kinds of issues as African-Americans remain sensitive to things like Virginia’s declaration of a Confederate History Month that fails to mention slavery.

So much of the incitement that drives terrorism arises from the perception Muslims in the United States are disparately treated, a perception that a terror exception to Miranda would fuel. Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Imam whose success in provoking terrorists has earned him a spot on the C.I.A.’s list of terrorists approved as a target for killing, focuses on perceived inequality within the U.S. in his recruitment. In his March 2002 talk at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Fairfax, VA., he stated “it is the responsibility of us as Muslims to make it very clear to the world that American Muslims are persecuted on a religious basis.” Changing basic criminal procedure as it applies to terrorism suspects will have a much more deleterious effect on America’s image in the Arab world, and thus the long-term success of our anti-terror strategy, than it will have any short-term benefit in discrete terrorism cases.

Others will say that terrorism suspects should be characterized as “enemy combatants” and essentially removed from the criminal justice system, eliminating the need to issue the Miranda warnings. Yet almost ten years after September 11, the US still has a primarily law enforcement-centric approach to domestic security, and creating an alternative avenue for pursuing domestic terrorists is simply not practical, and will not be for the foreseeable future.

When we choose not to extend Miranda to terrorism suspects it gives ammunition to Anwar al-Awlaki and his ilk to claim that we are persecuting Muslims. It plays into the hands of those who would destroy us and creates barriers between us and those who would support us.

Mr. Voss is a retired Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI where he was the lead hostage negotiator for the Crisis Negotiation Unit at Quantico. He is now a Managing Director at Insite Security. Mr. Falkenberg is a former Special Agent of the US Secret Service and is President of Insite Security.

I had an explosives instructor who once said, “If I can make it beep I can make it blow up,” explaining that the triggering mechanism for an explosive device is no different than than the closing of a circuit that makes an alarm clock sound or flashlight illuminate. Because this is true, what is it that makes something suspicious? The real issue is whether the item seems to belong where it is discovered. Many bombs are disguised as abandoned property. This is immediately remarkable because very little property is abandoned in the middle of a city. Less remarkable on transit lines, where people frequently forget their belongings. The most effective are disguised so that they seem to belong there and are not remarkable enough to draw scrutiny.

It is hard to reduce the risk to exposure to package bombs and other IEDs. The first step is to reduce the amount of time you spend in predicable target areas. Second is to reduce the amount of time you spend moving from one safe location to another. Third is to be sensitive to any feelings or awkwardness or danger that you detect regarding a given item or place. Act on these impulses as interviews of crime victims and survivors of disasters often report a feeling of impending danger before the incident. If you credit these internal feelings you will have a chance to survive a bombing.

Among the things one needs to launch a successful terror attack are willing participants and access to sufficient supplies to carry out the attack. Looking at what was found in the Nissan Pathfinder last night we see a very simple device comprised of hardware store supplies and some fireworks. The composition of the bomb reveals a lack of bomb making skill as well as an inability to obtain real equipment like explosives, even nitrate based fertilizer. As a result, I believe that even if the device had been set off, it would have resulted in a big fire with  limited casualties. If this was the result of an organized terror cell then we have very little to worry about as the threat from this type of low level attack is minimal. Similarly, if the recent claim of responsibility from Pakistani al Qaeda groups is legit it calls into question their ability to pull off large attacks. This, and the obvious difficulty this group had in procuring explosives (after working hard to disguise ownership of the car) are encouraging.

I think the driver will be caught quickly. If he turns out to be a radicalized American then this discovery will dovetail with the recent indictments in Brooklyn of two Americans for aiding al Qaeda to reveal a depth of domestic security threats that is worth worrying about.

The earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, as well as other recent natural disasters, raise questions regarding disaster preparedness for travelers. Much thought is given to man-made disasters such as terrorism, but relatively little to natural and unpredictable catastrophes. It is important for the corporate security manager or other c-level executives to embrace a holistic approach to risk mitigation including natural disasters and their results.

In the recent earthquakes, steps such as redundant communication systems and basic survival supplies could have helped travelers tremendously. Issuing satellite phones, like we do for Insite’s clients travelling to remote and less developed locales, would have helped tremendously in Haiti for example. Similarly, preparing travelers with basic medical supplies and the means of contacting a physician can also be of great help in emergencies where resources are stretched. Our partnership with World Clinic (www.worldclinic.com) provides our clients with a concierge medical solution that is prepared for disasters like the earthquakes of 2010 and other disasters we’ve witnessed over the past few years.

Lastly, where possible, security advisors should consider things such as building safety, construction standards and building codes in recommending hotel choices for travelers, as a variety of emergencies, such as fire, flood or earthquake, may make these judgments very important.  Prior to the Haitian earthquake we would have scoped out the hotels our clients were planning on staying in to ensure the soundness of their construction and would have planned for and provided evacuation planning.

Travel security goes well beyond the hiring of a driver or a physical security presence when traveling overseas; it requires a deeper level of thinking and preparation than can usually be handled in-house. Working with experts in this field can help mitigate problems when they arise thanks to proper planning and the ability to execute in difficult situations.

Has anyone recently dealt with a travel emergency? Be it foreign or domestic? Feel free to post and discuss!

The earthquake in Haiti gives rise to questions about emergency preparedness in general for those traveling to third world countries. Although there is little tourism in Haiti, there is a great deal in the Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispaniola. The Caribbean in general is an active seismic area, and travelers to Caribbean islands put themselves at risk from earthquake, tsunami, flooding and severe tropical storms.

The results of the earthquake in Haiti are predictable. There is no communication and the transportation infrastructure is compromised. No one can get calls in or out of Haiti, and even calls to the Dominican Republic are exceedingly slow. Both cell and landline phone services are either out of service or severely compromised. I expect it will soon become hard to find potable water in Port Au Prince. The environment is dusty, hot and humid, with little safe shelter due to the risk of aftershocks and fire.

What should travelers do to prepare for these risks? The first step is to contemplate them: how many people go on a trip with no thought to the safety and security issues that they commonly consider at home? There is a broad range of issues one should consider prior to travel, including medical care, road safety and crime, to name a few. Specific to natural disaster, we advise clients to prepare for a few contingencies:

Loss of communication: people traveling in the third world should travel with satellite phones. They are the only reliable form of communication following a real emergency. Even cities will have overloaded cell and local circuits, but satellite telephone is a means of keeping in touch on the go.

Clean water: water safety in urban areas is a rare but hugely dangerous issue. When supplies of bottled water either dry up or lose their integrity, travelers risk diseases such as widespread dysentery, particularly cholera. It is therefore useful to pack a water treatment kit to insure that you can convert water from whatever source into drinking water and avoid dangerous dehydration. Use a filter rather than IR purification to minimize risks from inorganic substances that may be in the water.

Lighting: in my earlier career as a Secret Service agent, I found no tool as useful as a good flashlight. Its uses are limitless, but include signaling, evacuation and crime prevention. Travelers should get a good LED flashlight with a clip and carry it on their person or in their handbag.

Air safety: N95 masks protect against a wide variety of problems, but in this case can permit the user to breathe more easily in the midst of dust and other contaminants soiling the air. A smoke mask is also a good idea, and both masks can fit easily into a small luggage compartment or pocket.

This equipment takes up little space and may never be used, but when needed these items can prove essential.

For more than 4 years I was one of the most highly trained personal body guards in the world. Serving as a United States Secret Service Special Agent. It was our job to ensure that the President of the United States (POTUS) was protected from any and all physical threats.

When I was guarding President Clinton it would have been crazy for him to carry a weapon on his person, or to have an untrained member of his inner circle carry a gun. The President of the United States is arguably the most valuable individual in the entire world, and his employer, the Government of the United States, is mandated to protect this highly-valued, very public, employee and not leave it up to him to protect himself.

Reading the stories about Gilbert Arenas carrying multiple firearms into his workplace or remembering back to the Plaxico Burress incident where he accidentally shot himself at a night club, it struck me as insane that the owners of NFL, MLB or NBA teams do not, as a matter or course, provide highly professional protection services to their players when off the court/field. Owners spend tens if not hundreds of millions on their players each year and do a fabulous job of protecting their athletes (investments) and fans at sports stadiums and fields, but once their players leave “the office” the teams cease to provide protection.

Sure most teams have training seminars for athletes on how to protect themselves, their loved ones and property. But, for the most part, teams leave it up to the athletes to protect themselves. How many do this is either through hiring personal “body guards” from their close knit group of untrained friends or by buying and carrying a weapon (usually legally). These posse-based security solutions rarely solve the problem. A security professional is trained to help avoid dangerous situations, to diffuse conflicts and to keep their protectees away from danger. Having your best friend from home carry a Glock is a recipe for trouble.

Exxon/Mobile provides 24-hour security for its CEO, Rex Tillerson, why wouldn’t the New York Giants provide the same type of security for Plaxico, or the Washington Wizards for Arenas?

The attack on Silvio Berlusconi reveals some weakness in Carabinieri security. First is the importance of distance. Distance equals time in an attack, and there wasn’t much distance between Berlusconi and the attacker on the rope line where he was accosted.

A more important issue is the crowding around the car and the apparent difficulty of getting the protectee into the car safely. A number of questions come to mind—was this an impromptu event? Was any security advance conducted? Was there any screening of the people in the rope-line area waiting to shake hands?

Assuming the statuette that was used as a weapon was non-metallic, it is possible that a screening process would have detected the assailant by sensing his affect. Media reports indicate the subject is mentally ill—were there signs of this illness that could have been observed by an attentive screener? How would the subject have responded to a question about his mood, his reason for being there or his attitude towards the prime minister?

I think the lesson is that effective security is concentric and redundant, relying on anticipation of emergencies and multiple layers of preparation and protection in order to prevent them.

The LA Times reported last week that star basketball player Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers did not attend a team shoot-around because of a home-invasion robbery at the house of a neighbor in his community. Apparently, a SWAT response resulted in the arrest of three people after a standoff at the home of one of Bryant’s Newport Beach, CA neighbors, while two suspects were still at large. Four of the suspects were apparently armed with handguns.

In this case, Bryant himself was not the target of the home invasion, although high-profile individuals are often tempting for criminals because so much information about their intended victims is available in the public domain. The home invasion took place inside a private gated community, which should prompt Bryant and the other residents to consider whether they should strengthen the security posture of their community.

The saga of Scott Rothstein and the collapse of an apparent fraud scheme points again to the failure of traditional due diligence in ferreting out fraud. From what little has been published regarding this unfortunate incident, someone checking up on Rothstein and his integrity would receive glowing reports. He lead a prominent law firm and had many friends in the bar. In addition, Rothstein was prominent in political circles in Florida, and I am sure that recipients of his fundraising largesse would gladly attest to his honesty. It is not known now what type of due diligence, if any, investors performed. Were there fake books and records? Was a bogus accountant involved, as in the case of Bayou and Madoff?

The one thing for sure is that Rothstein must have revealed his dishonest intentions when enticing others to participate in the fraud. Questions about returns and the security of invested funds certainly elicited verbal and non-verbal clues to his deception. Had one of the fleeced investors been able to detect the signs of his deception in advance, they could have avoided the loss. This is why I am so excited about our H Factor integrity practice, in which we deploy a behavioral scientist to assess people as they are speaking and determine if they are lying. It promises to be a huge step forward in avoiding future fraud.

Last week I attended the Family Office Exchange’s Fall Forum in Chicago for a chance to spend time with high net worth families and their advisors, a number of whom attended my special session on family security. FOX is a leading group in the HNW space, and it’s always valuable to hear input and feedback from their members.

This year, the top concern I heard from a number of participants, particularly families in metropolitan areas, is the lack of confidence in plans to prepare for emergencies and disasters. Despite government efforts over the past 8 years, families are still unsure of how best to prepare for or how to respond to a wide range of crucial scenarios, spanning weather emergencies to a potential terrorist attack.

The second issue on the minds of families and advisors is a concern over the role of staff when responding to emergencies. Household staff are eager to help and protect their employers and their children in adverse circumstances, but their good intensions may be misplaced or go awry. For example, staff may engage an unfamiliar trespasser directly without any protocol for making sure this person is not a threat or a plan for how to respond by securing the family and getting help if it turns out they are. Training staff is a key area when it comes to keeping families safe, and I’m glad family members and advisors are recognizing the issue and looking for solutions.

I discussed many more meaningful security issues and challenges with the FOX members and attendees. This year’s forum was engaging and educational, as always, and I’m looking forward to implementing some of what I learned.

Chris and Dr. Prial are mentioned in the ‘Deception’ section of this fantastic New York Times piece by Paul Sullivan on the insecurity investors have been feeling.  Sullivan describes uneasy investors who are re-thinking traditional due diligence in the wake of ponzi schemes like Bernie Madoff, Bayou and others.  Chris has pointed out that traditional investment due diligence usually examines a subject’s track record, but it can’t tell you if they’re being deceptive in the here and now.  In the article, Dr. Prial describes how she looks at involuntary, non-verbal signs to detect deception and alert investors to someone who is acting edgy or hiding something. Check out the article.

David Letterman’s recent on-air admission that he had carried on affairs with employees and as a result, subjected to an extortion attempt is not the first problem he’s had with his inner circle. On several occasions, insiders have caused problems for Letterman, bringing his private life into the spotlight.

In 2005, a man working as a painter on Letterman’s ranch in Montana plotted to kidnap his son. In that case, a thorough background investigation of temporary staff may have revealed that the man was already under state supervision for a previous crime. Years earlier, Letterman was targeted by a stalker, Margaret Ray, who called herself “Mrs. Letterman” and broke into Letterman’s house on a number of occasions.

In the current case, Stephanie Birkitt, Letterman’s mistress, had recently lived with Robert Halderman, the man who attempted to extort Letterman, and who also happens to be a longtime, Emmy-winning CBS journalist on the true-crime series 48 Hours. Letterman has a reputation of guarding his privacy tightly and keeping a close inner circle, but he serves as an example of how difficult it can be for prominent public figures to protect their privacy and keep out of the headlines. Whether a more rigorous background screening process for insiders would have kept his privacy intact in any of these cases is uncertain; it’s simply not reasonable to every vet employees’ significant others or screen every single transient worker.

Either through bad judgment or bad fortune, or both, Letterman demonstrates how personal information and knowledge in the wrong hands can be extremely damaging; sadly, he also demonstrates how difficult it can be to properly protect that information.

The H1N1 virus, Swine Flu, is hitting now, and businesses are beginning to feel the strain. Our clients are making sure that employees are on guard for the tell-tale symptoms of the flu: a high fever over 100 degree F, a severe headache, profound fatigue, a harsh cough and an intense full-body muscle ache. Staff are also paying more attention to typical cold and seasonal flu symptoms, staying home in order to reduce the risk of infecting co-workers or to care for children and loved ones.

Unfortunately, the first doses of the H1N1 vaccine are only now being delivered to hospitals and healthcare providers. The early vaccinations are reserved for at-risk groups like pregnant women, infant caregivers, medical personnel, children six months to four years old and children five to eighteen years old who have medical conditions.

Until the vaccine gets into wider circulation over the next month to six weeks, firms are facing a tough situation and should be especially cautious. This highly communicable flu is already hitting and very few people in the workplace have been vaccinated. This is an especially risky time when the workforce is in danger of exposure to the flu.

Take steps now to prevent the possibility of the flu sweeping through the office and knocking out a high percentage of employees for a week or more.

• Make sure that throughout the day everyone washes their hands and their faces, especially around the nose and mouth—even as often as 10 to 12 times per day.
• Have employees carry an N95 mask and encourage them to wear it in crowded environments.
• Change the office culture so that people reduce physical contact and standing in close proximity.
• Keep thermometers around to ensure no one is running a temperature, and if someone is, send them home immediately.

Flu season is here and it’s time to take steps to prevent Swine Flu from spreading.