DOCSLIB.ORG

ADSA16 Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ADSA16 Final Report for Securityfor Applications Development Advanced Strategic Study Workshop Series Advanced Development for Security Applications Addressing the Requirements for May 2017 Workshop Final Report Final Workshop 2017 May Different Stakeholders in Transportation Security ADSA16 ADSA16 May 2017 Workshop ALERT 2017 Publication ALERT Awareness and Localization of Explosives-Related Threats This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Award Number 2013-ST-061-ED0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Disclaimers 4 3. Introduction 5 4. Discussion 6 5. Acknowledgements 12 6. Workshop Planning and Support 13 7. Appendix: Notes 14 8. Appendix: Agenda 15 9. Appendix: Previous Workshops 19 10. Appendix: List of Participants 20 11. Appendix: Presenter Biographies 26 12. Appendix: Questionnaire 45 13. Appendix: Questionnaire Responses 46 14. Appendix: Acronyms 67 15. Appendix: Minutes 75 16. Appendix: Presentations 137 1 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop ADSA16 WORKSHOP Addressing the Requirements for Different Stakeholders in Transportaon Security Hosted by ALERT: Awareness and Localizaon of Explosives-Related Threats a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Center of Excellence May 2 - 3, 2017 17th Floor, East Village, Northeastern University 2 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop 1. Executive Summary A workshop entitled “Addressing the Requirements for Different Stakehold- ers in Transportation Security” was held at Northeastern University (NEU) in Boston on May 2-3, 2017. This workshop was the sixteenth in a series dealing with advanced development for security applications (ADSA16). The theme of this workshop was chosen in order to support the U.S. Depart- ment of Homeland Security’s (DHS) objective of improving the performance of existing technologies as well as improving the passenger experience at checkpoints. Another goal of the workshop was to support DHS’s objective to increase the participation of third parties, such as researchers from academia, national labs, and industry other than the incumbent vendors, in algorithm and system development for security applications. The workshop addressed the requirements for the following stakeholders: • TSA • Airlines • Passengers • Vendors • Terrorists The key indings from the workshop on what can be done to improve the ex- perience for stakeholders at the checkpoint, per the editors of this report, are as follows: • Developing a single technology that can satisfy TSA’s future requirements may by improbable or impossible. This solution is also denoted as a silver bullet. • TSA should consider allocating funds to support augmenting existing technologies using the following methods: o Developing technologies that can be fused with existing technologies; and o Acquiring additional information to change how technologies are ap- plied to passengers and divested items. This information may be used to perform the following tasks: • Reduce screening resources on minimum risk passengers; and • Provide statistical information on the contents of divested items. • Acquire best practices from the protection of non-aviation venues, such as malls and sports stadiums. 3 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop 2. Disclaimers This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Northeastern University nor any of their employees makes any warranty, ex- pressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the ac- curacy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any speciic commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the United States government or Northeastern University. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or relect those of the United States government or Northeastern University, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. This document summarizes a workshop at which a number of people partic- ipated in discussions and/or gave presentations. The views in this summary are those of ALERT and do not necessarily relect the views of all the partici- pants. All errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of ALERT. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Home- land Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Ofice of University Pro- grams, under Grant Award Number 2013-ST-061-ED0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the oficial policies, either ex- pressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 4 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop 3. Introduction The Explosive Division (EXD) of the DHS Science & Technology Director- ate (S&T), in coordination with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), have the objectives for improving the performance of existing technol- ogies, developing new technologies, and improving the passenger experience at checkpoints. One tactic that DHS is pursuing to achieve these objectives is to create an environment in which the capabilities and capacities of the estab- lished vendors can be augmented or complemented by third-party algorithm and hardware developments. A third-party developer, in this context, refers to academia, national labs, and companies other than the incumbent vendors. DHS is particularly interested in adopting the model that has been used by the medical imaging industry, in which university researchers and small compa- nies develop technologies that are eventually deployed in commercial imag- ing equipment. A tactic that DHS is using to stimulate third-party algorithm and hardware development is to sponsor a series of workshops addressing the research op- portunities that may enable the development of next-generation technologies for homeland security applications. The series of workshops are entitled “Ad- vanced Development for Security Applications (ADSA).” The workshops are convened by Professor Michael B. Silevitch as part of the DHS Center of Ex- cellence (COE) for Awareness and Localization of Explosives-Related Threats (ALERT) at NEU. ADSA16 was held on May 2-3, 2017 at NEU. The workshop was entitled “Ad- dressing the Requirements for Different Stakeholders in Transportation Se- curity.” This report discusses what transpired at the workshop and details a summary of the indings and recommendations. 5 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop 4. Discussion 4.1 Objectives of the Workshop The workshop addressed the requirements for the following stakeholders: • TSA • Airlines • Passengers • Vendors • Terrorists The purpose of this section is to summarize the discussion and recommen- dations in response to these objectives, as well as related questions that sur- faced during the workshop. 4.2 What Did We Hear? We heard about the following topics: • Dialogue about the relationship between manufacturers and TSA: We need additional methods to incentivize development of advanced tech- nologies. • Silver bullet: It may exist in emerging technologies; however, it may be improbable. • ADSA brings stakeholders together: Alternative funding may be required if ALERT’s funding ends. • The amount of risk TSA is willing to take: More discussion is required on the meaning of “risk.” • International markets for global aviation security: We need to align U.S. and foreign requirements. • Systems engineering and technology development process: We need to balance TSA speciications and opportunities for innovation. • Cyber security: We heard TSA requirements but need to have discussion on what it takes to achieve those requirements. • Predicting terrorist’s targets: Strong leaders do not want to attack civilian targets. Can a history of events be used to affect the performance of detec- tion systems? • Macro security: Assuming that there is no silver bullets, we can get more out of existing technologies, in part, by using additional data on passen- 6 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop gers and their divested items. • Requirements-based design: The security ield may need different back- ground in leadership. • Former insider looking back on the security ield: o Insider view • We lost track of the mission, and only low-risk development was allowed. • Diminishing returns occur when more time is spent doing lab test- ing. We have to get equipment into the airports early. Until then, you don’t really know how well it’s going to work. o Outsider view • For industries not selling to TSA • OEMs invest massively in remote connectivity, data gathering and analysis, etc., which increases risk. • We can run secondary software in the background for R&D then DT&E, and get into the ield early
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final CERD Follow up Report
    THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES A FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO THE U.N. COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE RIGHTS WORKING GROUP JUNE 30, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program, is the principal author of this report. Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Program, reviewed and edited drafts of the report. Nicole Kief of the ACLU Racial Justice Program also provided significant material and valuable editing assistance. Mónica Ramírez of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project provided substantial material and reviewed sections of the report. Reggie Shuford of the Racial Justice Program; Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project; and Michael Macleod-Ball, Jennifer Bellamy, and Joanne Lin of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office also reviewed drafts and contributed to the report, as did Ken Choe of the ACLU LGBT Project. Rachel Bloom and Nusrat Jahan Choudhary of the Racial Justice Program; Mike German and John Hardenbergh of the Washington Legislative Office; and Dan Mach of the ACLU Program on Religion and Belief all made contributions as well. Two law students, Elizabeth Joynes (Fordham Law School) and Peter Beauchamp (New York Law School), provided substantial editorial support and research assistance; Aron Cobbs from the Human Rights Program also contributed. Many ACLU affiliates made available extremely valuable material about and analyses of their state-based work, including Arizona, Arkansas, Northern California, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Eastern Missouri, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • SAALT Testimony to House Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil
    CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Written Testimony for the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law Enforcement Policy” June 17, 2010 Submitted by Deepa Iyer, Executive Director South Asian Americans Leading Together 1 ABOUT SAALT South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), is a national, nonpartisan, non-profit organization that elevates the voices and perspectives of South Asian individuals and organizations to build a more just and inclusive society in the United States.1 SAALT’s strategies include conducting policy analysis and advocacy; building partnerships with South Asian organizations and allies; mobilizing communities to take action; and developing leadership for social change. SAALT works with a base of individual members and advocates and is the coordinating entity of the National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSO), a network of 39 organizations in 13 geographic regions that provide direct services to, organize, and advocate on behalf of the South Asians in the United States. The experiences and local knowledge of member organizations within the NCSO in large part inform the policy recommendations included in this testimony. SAALT denounces the use of profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, nationality, and immigration status. Especially since 9/11, South Asians, Sikhs, Muslims, and Arab Americans have been subjected to policies that are based in profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement activities. SAALT works closely with partner organizations to identify the impact of profiling tactics and advocate against their utilization.2 SAALT strongly urges the passage of federal legislation, such as the End Racial Profiling Act, that eliminates profiling in all its forms, including those resulting from post-9/11 policies and practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Towards Responsible Security Technology Fields
    KI-NA-24835-EN-C E UROPEAN European Science COMMISSION Research Area in Society This publication, introduced and edited by René von Schomberg, consists of a series of research articles reflecting on how to proceed towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Towards Responsible Security Technology fields. Research and The authors who contributed to this publication are coordinators or participants to major FP7 Innovation in the projects funded under the Science in Society Programme. A total of 10 projects have inspired Information and the authors to reflect and address various governance and ethics issues underlying Communication the responsible development of these new technologies. Technologies A deliberative approach to the responsible and Security development of these technologies implies inclusive governance, based on broad stakeholder Technologies Fields involvement, public debate and early societal intervention in research and innovation, among other, by means of ethics assessments and various technology and privacy impact assessments. Research and Innovation Policy European Commission Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2011 – 217 pp. – 17.6 x 25.0 cm ISBN 978-92-79-20404-3 ISSN 1018-5593 doi: 10.2777/58723 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Government Failed You
    YOUR GOVERNMENT FAILED YOU BREAKING THE CYCLE OF NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTERS R IC HAR D A. CLARK E In Memory of Sam Hamrick aka W. T. Tyler, Dedicated public servant, Talented author, iconoclast, and friend Contents one 9/11 Changed Everything? 1 two No More Vietnams 10 three No More Iraqs 46 four Can We Reduce Intelligence Failures? 92 five Terrorism 154 six Homeland Security 203 seven Energy 261 eight Into Cyberspace 285 nine Getting It Right 319 Acknowledgments 359 Notes 360 Index 389 About the Author Other Books by Richard A. Clarke Credits Cover Copyright About the Publisher One 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING? hen I said “Your government failed you” to the families of the W victims of 9/11, it seemed to me that I was merely stating the obvious: the government had failed the American people. And I had. Three thousand people had been murdered in a morning, not on a battlefield, not in their battleships as had happened at Pearl Harbor, but in their offices. They had been killed by a terrorist group that had promised to attack us, and which we had been unable to stop. The CIA had been unable to assassinate its leadership. It had also been unable to tell anyone when the terrorists had shown up in this country, even though it knew they were here. The national leadership had been un- willing to focus on the threat for months, although repeatedly warned to do so. And I had been unable to get either the bureaucracy or the new national leadership to act toward the terrorist network before the big attack in the way they would want to respond after thousands of Americans had been murdered.
    [Show full text]
  • Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications Inlaw Enforcement Policy
    AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GP0 RACIAL PROFILING AND THE USE OF SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS INLAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 17, 2010 Serial No. 111-131 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56-956 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COIVIITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. "BOBBY' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida TOM ROONEY, Florida LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois GREGG HARPER, Mississippi TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California LINDA T.
    [Show full text]