August 30th, 2010 Are Threats Legal?
  By Christopher Falkenberg
 

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.

 
Insite Security  
   
August 17th, 2010 Securing Your Summer Home for the End of the Season
  By Christopher Falkenberg
 

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.

 
Insite Security  
   
May 10th, 2010 Has the Big Apple Become the Big Eyeball?
  By admin
 

Has the Big Apple Become the Big Eyeball?

By ARIEL KAMINER

New York Times Interactive Feature

There’s one, over by the Walgreens entrance, and there’s another, just below the King Tut banner — video cameras, installed by private companies to survey the public spectacle of Times Square. I would not have seen the countless electronic eyes had Christopher Falkenberg, the president of a firm called Insite Security, not pointed them out. But I felt pretty sure those cameras had a clear view of me.

Start looking for them and they really are everywhere: the New York Police Department cameras, which announce themselves with bright insignia; a cluster of three orbs, hanging like fruit outside Blue Fin on West 47th Street and Broadway; a pair of glass spheres stacked outside the Starbucks across the street. Staring into one, I was startled to see something staring back: a lens swiveling toward me for a better view.

In Times Square, perhaps more than any other place in the city, our movements are being recorded a hundred different ways: from a few stories up the side of the Bertelsmann building, from inside the plate glass of the Bank of America branch, as we pass through the turnstiles of a subway station, at the point of purchase in seemingly every store. While the search was still on for the driver of that smoking Nissan Pathfinder, one of the Police Department’s first moves was to review footage from cameras between 51st and 34th Streets — all 82 of them. And those are just the cameras the city owns.

Cities — New York in particular, and Times Square most of all — used to be places to lose yourself in the thrilling anonymity of a crowd, to find yourself reflected in the eyes of strangers. Of course, no one really disappears now; we all leave a trace. But as urban legends go it remains a powerful one. It’s hard to adjust to the idea that cities — New York in particular, and Times Square most of all — are now places where unseen watchers can monitor your every move.

The bomb scare was a stark reminder of the risks New Yorkers take every day and of the crucial role that cameras can play in the first few hours after a crime. But is Times Square ready for its close-up? Am I?

Staring into that shiny oculus outside the Starbucks a few days after the bombing attempt, I figured I was being watched by a sharp-eyed security guard in the building’s basement. Or perhaps an F.B.I. agent was monitoring me — and half the rest of the city — on some master console in a secret Midtown office.

More likely, said Mr. Falkenberg, a former Secret Service agent, no one was paying attention at all. Many closed-circuit cameras are set up just to record, for review as needed. Others are actively monitored, he said, but by people who have been staring at the screen so long they have lost focus — what you might call the airport baggage screener problem.

And forget about collecting all those video streams in one central place, like they do in the Bourne movies. “For the government to tap into multiple proprietary databases — it-s not actually possible without a subpoena,” Mr. Falkenberg said. “Even if you took away all the liability concerns and all the privacy concerns, the video’s not in the same format.”

So much for the ring of steel. But if the cameras fix-mounted on the sides of Times Square buildings were not necessarily doing much, the cameras in the hands of every tourist in sight were working overtime.

Rafael Boldo, 25, and Camila Sierra, 27, visitors from Sao Paolo, were holding a pink Sony at arm’s length and snapping themselves as they faced south on West 43rd Street. In the background, Mauricio Mutis, of Colombia, and Pietro Basso, of Brazil, both 25 and both advertising students, were taking the last frame of their student project: a stop-motion walk north from Union Square to Times Square. They had captured a good swath of the city in their viewfinder, and they weren’t worried by what they saw. “I feel safe, for some reason,” Mr. Basso said.

Behind them, a news crew from NTN-24, the Spanish-language station, was dismantling its shoot when a commotion arose a few feet away. Someone was screaming, everyone was running. Mario Lopez and his celebrity dimples had been spotted in the flesh. Instantly he was swarmed, as dozens of fans whipped out cellphones and squealed.

If any crime had been committed in Times Square that day, it would have been captured by a thousand cellphone cameras, with the potential to produce an instant Zapruder film in the round. With a few taps, those movies could have been tagged and uploaded to YouTube, where millions of people could scour them for clues.

That’s surveillance far more intensive, and more granular, than anything Walgreens or Bank of America will ever manage. So why doesn’t it feel as creepy? Maybe because its primary target is the Naked Cowboy.

The city’s new plan for increased video surveillance will cost millions, and however helpful it may be in solving crimes, there is no guarantee that it will prevent even one. Meanwhile, the eyes of the world are on Times Square — right there on the ground, squinting through viewfinders and scanning for someone famous.

One story up, the faces of Carrie Bradshaw, Corbin Bleu, Angela Lansbury, the cast of “Hair” and Lady Gaga gaze down from enormous billboards. They’re watching us, too. And they’re smiling.

 
Insite Security  
   
 
 
 
Home About Us Family Security Corporate Security Investigation Services Special Services Media Center Contact Us © Insite Security, Inc. All Rights Reserved