Department of Homeland Security Video

Department of Homeland Security Video

Take 3 minutes to listen to Bruce Davidson from Homeland Security and security professionals on the importance of SAFETY Act approved products. Isotec Security is in the anti-terrorism business. We know that offering SAFETY Act approved products removes the guesswork for our clients. They know the process and product standards set forth by Homeland Security reduce their liabilities while keeping safe and protecting what matters most. They understand that acts terrorism are rising and their countermeasures to prevent terrorism and violent crimes must prevail. Whether your facility is an airport, courthouse, hospital, place of business, or a strategic site, Isotec Security has SAFETY Act approved products that will keep safe and to protect what matters to you.

 

 

SCIF & Intelligence Community Directives

TEMPEST: Telecommunications and Electrical Machinery Protected From Emissions and Spurious Transmissions

In United States security and intelligence parlance, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF; pronounced “skiff”) is an enclosed area within a building that is used to process Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) types of classified information. SCI is classified information concerning or derived from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes, which is required to be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Some entire buildings are SCIFs where all but the front foyer is secure. Access to SCIFs is normally limited to those with clearance.[1] Non-cleared personnel in SCIF must be under constant oversight to prevent unauthorized access to classified material;[2] as part of this process, non-cleared personnel are typically required to surrender recording and other electronic devices.[3] All of the activity and conversation inside is presumed restricted from public disclosure. A SCIF can also be located in an air, ground or maritime vehicle, or can be established on a temporary basis at a specific site.

The physical construction, access control, and alarming of the facility has been defined by various directives, including Director of Central Intelligence Directives (DCIDs) 1/21 and 6/9, and most recently (2011) by Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705, signed by the Director of National Intelligence. ICD 705 is a three page document that implements Intelligence Community Standard (ICS) 705.1. Computers operating within such a facility must conform to rules established by ICD 503. Computers and telecommunication equipment within must conform to TEMPEST emanations specification as directed by a Certified TEMPEST Technical Authority (CTTA).

SCI is usually only briefed, discussed, and stored in an accredited SCIF. Moreover, programs used for SCI are normally not acknowledged publicly by the U.S. government.

Zero risk tolerance for Physical Security of a SCIF can be accomplished a number of ways. Call us to find out how at 303.800.3344

Isotec’s Qualified Anti-terrorism Technologies protect the most secure facilities on the planet.

Intelligence Community Directive 703

Intelligence Community Standard 705-1

 

Eliminate the Element of Surprise

Don’t sacrifice highly trained law enforcement, military or security personnel as exposed targets.

Additional personnel at a security entrance or secured site are required due to the already understood, inability for one guard to “contain projected velocity.” Typically and all too late, security personnel react to armed provocation without the strategic advantage of containment. Thus they are a step behind, as it takes the human body 3/4 of a second to effectively react to stimuli.

Even the sharpest of operatives periodically fall victim to complacency and lack of focus. These are but a few reasons, that without the advantage of containment, the first security officer to confront an armed assailant is not only at an extreme disadvantage, but in peril as well.

Conversely, bullet resistant automated security entrances, integrated with screening devices, manned or not, render the same assailant isolated, ineffective and without the element of surprise.

Security personnel recognize that an armed assailant is not deterred by detection. Typically the moment of detection merely becomes the catalyst for the assault to begin.

This is especially so for an organized assault, whereby the first perpetrator, by his actions, activates and identifies security measures for the benefit of a main force. This main group has now gained a tactical advantage as they go unnoticed while they pre-target security forces responding to suppress the immediate threat. The main assault group now has the advantage over the distracted and exposed security force.

By automatically detecting and isolating the first assailant, a proactive security system protects security personnel and denies a broader attack on the entrance from ever occurring.

Isotec Security’s deepest concern is that one day the inherent weakness of reactive vs. proactive security will be exploited at very dear cost to the facility targeted, the security personnel charged with its protection and citizenry. Our mission is to insure that does not happen.

David Barnes
Chief Executive
Isotec Security

Isotec Safety Entrances Protect Homeland Security Facility

Isotec Security deployed multiple technological innovations with its recent delivery of an automated safety entrance system for a DHS agency. The site specific, bullet resistant, automated weapons, access and materials control system is the most technologically advanced system available for controlling public access to a government facility. “The challenge was direct, provide isolating technology and safety solutions that would exceed our customer’s functionality and aesthetic expectations.”

Isotec Security’s core competency for invention and innovation made this system its most advanced automated security solution; demonstrating yet again Isotec Security’s ability to provide site specific and risk appropriate security for the strategic assets of the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security.

The multi lane Safety Entrance system is remotely monitored and controlled by ICON, Isotec Security’s proprietary IP communication and graphic user interface technology. ICON’s command and control capability enables the system to interface with metal detectors, intercoms, multi-level infrared object detection, video cameras, motion and presence sensors, card readers and Isotec Security’s proprietary Anti-tailgating (ATG) technology.

“VIGILANT” MULTI-LEVEL INFRARED OBJECT DETECTION
To meet specified risk and threat detection and isolation requisites, Isotec Security designed an infrared detection system that instantly identifies abandoned objects within control areas. Code named “Vigilant”, the application will insure that articles entering control areas and passage ways are screened.

DA VINCI LIGHTING – Seeing is Believing
Isotec Security also unveiled its 3G ambient lighting package. The system utilizes recessed LED technology, creating an even and brighter ambiance within desired control areas. The lighting system reduces installation time and energy costs vs. canned incandescent lighting.

The break away magnetic lock system and Da Vinci LED system are commercially available in Isotec’s High Security Ballistic.

Isotec Security is a comprehensive safety and security solutions provider and manufacturer of automated “hard posture” security systems, and related isolation technologies designed for deterrence, detection and protection against acts of terrorism. These bullet resistant systems have a stellar operating history and is Designated by the Department of Homeland Security and Anti-terrorism Technologies as safe and effective.

Isotec Security is headquartered in Westminster, Colorado. For more information about our safety entrances request information or call 303-452-0022.

Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear power plants have long been recognized as potential targets of terrorist attacks, and critics have long questioned the adequacy of the measures required of nuclear plant operators to defend against such attacks. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) began a “top-to-bottom” review of its security requirements. On February 25, 2002, the agency issued “interim compensatory security measures” to deal with the “generalized high-level threat environment” that continued to exist, and on January 7, 2003, it issued regulatory orders that tightened nuclear plant access. On April 29, 2003, NRC issued three orders to restrict security officer work hours, establish new security force training and qualification requirements, and increase the “design basis threat” that nuclear facility security personnel must be able to defeat.

Given the bewildering array of potential terrorist targets, there is a clear need for a systematic approach that can (1) classify targets according to attractiveness, vulnerability and consequences; (2) apportion physical security resources in order to achieve a uniform level of protection across the infrastructure; and (3) assess the effectiveness of protective measures against terrorist threats using a consistent methodology.

For SAFETY Act, Industry Could be a Driver

In the years after the devastating Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the legacy of 9/11 still echoes in New York City’s law firms and courts. The city has seen lawsuits from the families of victims, from first responders and from those whose property was damaged — so it’s logical that businesses in the area are looking to take advantage of a federal liability-capping system for anti-terrorism services.

Although the evidence is anecdotal, officials from several homeland security business and advocacy groups say that New York-area businesses are increasingly looking for security contractors covered under the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act.

“During my time at the department, we were hearing from owners and operators in New York who were saying they saw this as a way to vet technology and services — some even saw it as part of their business model,” said Akmal Ali, a principal at the lobbying firm Catalyst Partners and the former No. 2 in the Homeland Security Department’s SAFETY Act office.

Congress passed the SAFETY Act less than a year after 9/11, as a way to make sure that the threat of liability didn’t deter companies from producing anti-terrorism technology. The act has come to cover everything from blast shields, to explosive-sniffing dog services, to a process that makes ammonium nitrate fertilizer harder to turn into the type of bomb used in the Oklahoma City attack.

The coverage is product-specific. Products or services that reach the highest level of certification are shielded from liability, while those a step down get a liability cap. The benefits extend to those who buy products approved at either level — they cannot be sued for using them.

The law enjoys widespread, bipartisan support in Congress. In fact, when lawmakers have discussed it, they usually focus on the fact that only a comparatively small number of companies with eligible services seek coverage.

“I’m trying to find a way to get this to work, because everybody loves it,” California Republican Rep. Dan Lungren said in a hearing examining the act last year.

The SAFETY Act office gets about 200 applications per year. Paul Benda, director of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, said that’s a number the department is constantly trying to increase.

“Expansion is one of our goals,” he said.

That’s why some supporters see the idea of New York businesses looking for SAFETY Act approval from their contractors as a positive step. If more buyers want the coverage, more sellers would theoretically apply. It’s a development the law’s architects envisioned, said Raymond B. Biagini, a partner at the law firm McKenna, Long and Aldridge, who helped author some of the act’s key provisions.

“We want to see customers realize that if they go out and buy SAFETY Act technology that they get derivative coverage,” he said.

But Biagini and the law’s other proponents say that one big contractor hasn’t pushed for SAFETY Act approval as hard as it could: the federal government.

“We have not seen it as widespread as it could be in federal contracts,” said Marc Pearl, president of the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council. Many agencies, including some in the Homeland Security Department, need to pay more attention to federal procurement regulations that say SAFETY Act approval can be a consideration for anti-terrorism contracts, he said.

Many of those in industry who like the SAFETY Act also want to see it incorporated into something like a Homeland Security “seal of approval” that could provide businesses and emergency response agencies with a list of reliable services.

“They are inundated by companies saying ‘I have the best product,’ and they’re not always the best product,” said Bradley C. Schreiber, vice president of Washington operations for the Applied Science Foundation for Homeland Security. “The SAFETY Act needs to be part of a broader product certification system within DHS so that federal, state and local first responders know what they’re buying is a trusted product.”

Although it recently introduced a set of SAFETY Act seals companies can use in their marketing materials, the department maintains the law is for liability, not for rating technologies. But Ali said it should reconsider that stance.

“If they’re not doing it that way, they should, because that’s how it’s really worked,” he said. “In my opinion, it’s a clearinghouse for effective technology. Why reinvent the wheel?”

By Rob Margetta, CQ Staff, Rob Margetta can be reached at rmargetta@cq.com

A version of this story appeared in CQ Weekly
Source: CQ Homeland Security