DOCSLIB.ORG

AR 190-13 the Army Physical Security Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Army Regulation 190–13 Military Police The Army Physical Security Program Distribution Restriction Statement. This regulation contains operational information for official Government use only; thus distribution is limited to U.S. Government agencies. Requests from outside the U.S. Government for release of this regulation under the Freedom of Infor- mation Act or Foreign Military Sales Program must be made to the Office of the Provost Marshal General (DAPM-MPO-PS), (2800 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-2800). Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 27 June 2019 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SUMMARY of CHANGE AR 190–13 The Army Physical Security Program This major revision, dated 27 June 2019— o Updates responsibilities (chap 1). o Implements the U.S. Military Police Security Management System (Counter Measures) and mandates use to document physical security inspections (para 1–10h). o Extends the time period from 60 to 90 days for deficiencies that are correctable before a waiver to policy must be submitted (para 2–3b(1)(a)). o Adds a requirement that Army commands, Army service component commands, direct reporting units, and the Army National Guard have a physical security plan, and provides a format (para 2–8a and app B). o Revises the list of facilities that can be designated as mission essential vulnerable areas (para 2–11d). o Changes the inspection period from 24 to 18 months for conventional arms, ammunition, and explosives bulk storage, nuclear reactors, special nuclear materials, chemical agents, and biological select agents and toxins (paras 2–15c(1) through (3)). o Establishes a personnel reliability screening and evaluation program (para 2–21). o Moves policy on physical security protection requirements for high-risk personnel from AR 190–51 to this regulation (para 2–22). o Provides instruction and guidance for the Department of Defense Security Professional Education Development certification program (para 3–8). o Removes the warning sign for site perimeters, and extends the use of the warning sign at figure 6–1 to include use at site perimeters (para 6–7). o Revises policies on the survivor access card and incorporates AD 2014–05, which provides fitness adjudication standards and procedures for installation access control (paras 8–4 and 8–5). o Provides guidance on how to manage and use small, unmanned aircraft systems on, or near, installations (chap 11). o Revises the format for physical security plans for installations, stand-alone facilities, and units (app C). o Provides a format for the barracks physical security plan (app D). o Provides instructions to complete a DA Form 7708 (app E). o Provides manning factors for installation access control points (app F). o Provides requirements to maintain and test systems and equipment at installation access control points (app G). o Provides procedures for the monthly operational test of an intrusion detection system (app H). FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Headquarters *Army Regulation 190–13 Department of the Army Washington, DC 27 June 2019 Effective 27 July 2019 Military Police The Army Physical Security Program areas; conduct access control for installa- their higher headquarters to the policy pro- tions and stand-alone facilities; and manage ponent. Refer to paragraph 2–3 of this reg- security forces. ulation for specific guidance. Applicability. This regulation applies to Army internal control process. This the Regular Army, the Army National regulation contains internal controls and Guard/Army National Guard of the United identifies key internal controls that must be States, and the U.S. Army Reserve, unless evaluated (app J). otherwise stated. It also applies to Govern- Supplementation. Supplementation of ment-owned and Government-operated ac- this regulation and establishment of com- tivities. mand and local forms are prohibited with- Proponent and exception authority. out prior approval from the Provost Mar- The proponent of this regulation is the shal General (DAPM–MPO–PS), 2800 Provost Marshal General. The proponent Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310– has the authority to approve exceptions or 2800. waivers to this regulation that are consistent Suggested improvements. Users are History. This publication is a major revi- with controlling law and regulations. The invited to send comments and suggested sion. proponent may delegate this approval au- improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recom- thority, in writing, to a division chief within Summary. This regulation implements mended Changes to Publications and Blank the proponent agency or its direct reporting Department of Defense Instruction Forms) directly to Provost Marshal General unit or field operating agency, in the grade 5200.08, Department of Defense Instruc- (DAPM–MPO–PS), 2800 Army Pentagon, of colonel or the civilian equivalent. This tion 3224.03, and Army Directive 2014-05. Washington, DC 20310–2800 or approval authority is delegated to the Chief, It prescribes policies and procedures to plan usarmy.pentagon.hqda-pmg.list.ps@mail. Office of the Provost Marshal General, Op- and implement the Department of the Army mil. Physical Security Program. It provides pol- erations Division. Activities may request a icies on how to use physical security equip- waiver to this regulation by providing justi- Distribution. This regulation is available ment; appoint physical security officers and fication that includes a full analysis of the in electronic media only and is intended for inspectors; conduct physical security in- expected benefits and must include formal command levels C, D, and E for the Regular spections and surveys; manage physical se- review by the activity’s senior legal officer. Army, the Army National Guard/Army Na- curity credentials; manage and use identifi- All waiver requests will be endorsed by the tional Guard of the United States, and the cation cards and badges; manage restricted commander, director, or senior leader of the U.S. Army Reserve. requesting activity and forwarded through Contents (Listed by paragraph and page number) Chapter 1 Introduction, page 2 Section I General, page 1 Purpose • 1–1, page 1 Reference and forms • 1–2, page 1 Explanation of abbreviations and terms • 1–3, page 1 Responsibilities • 1–4, page 1 Records management (recordkeeping) requirements • 1–5, page 1 * This regulation supersedes AR 190–13, dated 25 February 2011. AR 190–13 • 27 June 2019 i FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Section II Responsibilities, page 2 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) • 1–6, page 1 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) • 1–7, page 1 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment) • 1–8, page 1 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) • 1–9, page 1 Provost Marshal General • 1–10, page 2 Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1 • 1–11, page 2 Deputy Chief of Staff, G–2 • 1–12, page 2 Deputy Chief of Staff, G–3/5/7 • 1–13, page 3 Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4 • 1–14, page 3 Chief Information Officer/G–6 • 1–15, page 3 Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation • 1–16, page 3 The Inspector General • 1–17, page 3 The Surgeon General • 1–18, page 3 Chief of Engineers • 1–19, page 3 Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • 1–20, page 3 Chief, Army Reserve • 1–21, page 4 Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command • 1–22, page 4 Directors and supervisors of Army staff agencies and commanders or directors of Army organizations not on military garrisons • 1–23, page 5 Senior commanders, directors, and managers appointed per AR 600–20 • 1–24, page 5 Commanders and directors of Army commands, Army service component commands, direct reporting units, the Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • 1–25, page 6 Product manager, force protection systems • 1–26, page 6 Commanders and directors with mission command responsibility for Army-managed Armed Forces Reserve Centers, Army Reserve Centers, Army National Guard Armories, and similar Army stand-alone facilities subject to DA juris- diction or administration, or in DA custody • 1–27, page 7 Commanders and directors of installation garrisons and Army-led Joint bases, and commanders of tenant units on Army installations and Army-led Joint bases • 1–28, page 8 Installation and activity provost marshals, directors of emergency services, or physical security officers • 1–29, page 9 Installation, garrison and activity engineers and master planners • 1–30, page 9 Career Program 19 (Physical Security and Law Enforcement) functional chief representative and career program man- ager • 1–31, page 9 Chapter 2 Department of the Army Physical Security Program, page 2 General • 2–1, page 10 Privacy and freedom of information • 2–2, page 11 Security criteria deviation process • 2–3, page 11 Crime prevention • 2–4, page 12 Program assessment • 2–5, page 13 Planning factors • 2–6, page 13 Planning coordination • 2–7, page 13 Physical security plans • 2–8, page 14 Contingency plans • 2–9, page 14 Barracks plans • 2–10, page 15 Mission essential vulnerable areas • 2–11, page 15 Threat assessment • 2–12, page 16 U.S. Army Security Management System (CounterMeasures) • 2–13, page 16 Physical security surveys • 2–14, page 16 Physical security inspections • 2–15, page 17 Report of action taken or planned for physical security surveys and inspections • 2–16, page 19 Report classification • 2–17, page 19 Security engineering surveys • 2–18, page 19 ii AR 190–13 • 27 June 2019 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR
Recommended publications
  • Designing Physical Security Monitoring for Water Quality Surveillance and Response Systems

    Designing Physical Security Monitoring for Water Quality Surveillance and Response Systems

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Designing Physical Security Monitoring For Water Quality Surveillance and Response Systems Office of Water (AWBERC, MS 140) EPA 817-B-17-001 September 2017 Disclaimer The Water Security Division of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has reviewed and approved this document for publication. This document does not impose legally binding requirements on any party. The information in this document is intended solely to recommend or suggest and does not imply any requirements. Neither the U.S. Government nor any of its employees, contractors or their employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of any information, product or process discussed in this document, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Version History: The 2019 version is the second release of the document, originally published in September 2017. This release includes updated component names (Enhanced Security Monitoring was changed to Physical Security Monitoring and Consequence Management was changed to Water Contamination Response), an updated version of Figure 1.1 that reflects the component name changes and includes the Advanced Metering Infrastructure component, an updated Glossary, updated target capabilities, and updated links to external resources. “Enhanced” was replaced with “Physical” in this document to avoid any implication of a baseline standard, and better describe the type of security. Questions concerning this document should be addressed to [email protected] or the following contacts: Nelson Mix U.S.
  • Standards for Building Materials, Equipment and Systems Used in Detention and Correctional Facilities

    Standards for Building Materials, Equipment and Systems Used in Detention and Correctional Facilities

    NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY Research Information Center Gaithersburg, MD 20890 PUBLICATIONS NBSIR 87-3687 Standards for Building Materials, Equipment and Systems Used in Detention and Correctional Facilities Robert D. Dikkers Belinda C. Reeder U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards National Engineering Laboratory Center for Building Technology Building Environment Division Gaithersburg, MD 20899 November 1987 Prepared for: -QC ment of Justice 100 ititute of Corrections i, DC 20534 . U56 87-3687 1987 C . 2 Research Information Center National Bureau of Standards Gaithersburg, Maryland NBSIR 87-3687 20899 STANDARDS FOR BUILDING MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS USED IN u - DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Robert D. Dikkers Belinda C. Reeder U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards National Engineering Laboratory Center for Building Technology Building Environment Division Gaithersburg, MD 20899 November 1987 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections Washington, DC 20534 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface . vi Acknowledgements vii Executive Summary ix I . INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background , 1 B. Objectives and Scope of NBS Study 3 II. FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 6 A. Facility Development Process 6 1 . Needs Assessment ........................................ 6 2 . Master Plan 6 3 . Mission Statement . 6 4. Architectural Program 7 5. Schematic Design and Design Development 7 6 . Construction 9 B. Security Levels 10 C . ACA S tandar ds 13 . III MATERIALS , EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS .... 14 A. Introduction 14 B. Performance Problems 15 C. Available Standards/Guide Specifications 20 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 5 Page D« Perimeter Systems 21 1 .
  • Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) Customer Ordering Guide

    Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) Customer Ordering Guide

    Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) Customer Ordering Guide Revised January 2017 1 Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) Customer Ordering Guide Table of Contents Purpose ...................................................................................................................3 Background .............................................................................................................3 Recent Policy Announcements ...............................................................................4 What is PACS? .......................................................................................................5 As an end-user agency, where do I start and what steps are involved? ................. 7 Where do I purchase PACS Solutions from GSA? ..............................................10 How do I purchase a PACS Solution using GSA eBuy? .....................................11 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) ...................................................................12 GSA Points of Contact for PACS .........................................................................15 Reference Documents ...........................................................................................16 Sample Statement of Work (SOW) ......................................................................18 2 Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) Customer Ordering Guide Purpose The purpose of this document is to create a comprehensive ordering guide that assists ordering agencies, particularly contracting officers, to
  • Where Have You Gone George C. Marshall? Colonel Douglas A

    Where Have You Gone George C. Marshall? Colonel Douglas A

    Photo courtesy of the George C. Marshall Foundation Where Have You Gone George C. Marshall? Colonel Douglas A. LeVien United States Army here have you gone George C. Marshall? Dr. Forrest Pogue’s illuminating authorized, 1 four–volume, 1,900 page, biography of George C. Marshall published between 1963 and 1987, is the definitive, indispensable account of the “true organizer of victory” and W 1 America’s global role in the post World War II world. Pogue’s masterpiece is an enduring monument to the life of one of America’s greatest soldiers, statesmen, humanitarians, peacemakers, and architects of success. The historian Douglas Freeman once observed that when Marshall’s colleagues asked themselves what were his most noble character virtues, they immediately turned to Thomas Jefferson’s testimonial to George Washington: “His integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decisions.”2 “Succeeding generations,” Winston Churchill insisted, “must not be allowed to forget his achievements and his example.”3 Marshall was a leadership genius whose guiding principles are timeless and worthy of emulation. Yet after 14-plus years of endless conflict following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and for considerable spans of the last half-century, the United States has largely ignored his example. In an era when too many of our public and private leaders are more interested in their personal or special interests, and more concerned about prestige than selflessness, it is absolutely necessary to reflect upon how Marshall would have prevented the best military in the world from misguided, endless wars and provided the world’s lone superpower with the strategic vision to navigate in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment.
  • DEPARTMENT of the ARMY the Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 Phone (703) 695–2442

    DEPARTMENT of the ARMY the Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 Phone (703) 695–2442

    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 phone (703) 695–2442 SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 101 Army Pentagon, Room 3E700, Washington, DC 20310–0101 phone (703) 695–1717, fax (703) 697–8036 Secretary of the Army.—Dr. Mark T. Esper. Executive Officer.—COL Joel Bryant ‘‘JB’’ Vowell. UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 102 Army Pentagon, Room 3E700, Washington, DC 20310–0102 phone (703) 695–4311, fax (703) 697–8036 Under Secretary of the Army.—Ryan D. McCarthy. Executive Officer.—COL Patrick R. Michaelis. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY (CSA) 200 Army Pentagon, Room 3E672, Washington, DC 20310–0200 phone (703) 697–0900, fax (703) 614–5268 Chief of Staff of the Army.—GEN Mark A. Milley. Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.—GEN James C. McConville (703) 695–4371. Executive Officers: COL Milford H. Beagle, Jr., 695–4371; COL Joseph A. Ryan. Director of the CSA Staff Group.—COL Peter N. Benchoff, Room 3D654 (703) 693– 8371. Director of the Army Staff.—LTG Gary H. Cheek, Room 3E663, 693–7707. Sergeant Major of the Army.—SMA Daniel A. Dailey, Room 3E677, 695–2150. Directors: Army Protocol.—Michele K. Fry, Room 3A532, 692–6701. Executive Communications and Control.—Thea Harvell III, Room 3D664, 695–7552. Joint and Defense Affairs.—COL Anthony W. Rush, Room 3D644 (703) 614–8217. Direct Reporting Units Commanding General, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command.—MG John W. Charlton (443) 861–9954 / 861–9989. Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy.—LTG Robert L. Caslen, Jr. (845) 938–2610. Commanding General, U.S. Army Military District of Washington.—MG Michael L.
  • Inspector General of the Marine Corps (IGMC)

    Inspector General of the Marine Corps (IGMC)

    Report No. DODIG-2018-131 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY INVESTIGATIONS OF SENIOR OFFICIALS U.S. Department of Defense InspectorJUNE 14, 2018 General REPORT OF INVESTIGATION RICK A. URIBE BRIGADIER GENERAL U.S. MARINE CORPS INTEGRITY INDEPENDENCE EXCELLENCE The document contains information that may be exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 20170617-044637-CASE-01 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION: BRIGADIER GENERAL RICK A. URIBE, U.S. MARINE CORPS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Complaint Origin and Allegations On June 15, 2017, the DoD Hotline received a complaint alleging that Brigadier General (BGen) Rick A. Uribe, U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) while assigned as the Deputy Commanding General (DCG) for Operations-Baghdad, and Director, Combined Joint Operations Center (CJOC), Baghdad, Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command (CJFLCC), Iraq, permitted his officer to perform activities other than those required in the performance of official duties.1 The complaint also alleged that BGen Uribe violated Marine Corps personnel weigh-in requirements. On August 4, 2017, we initiated this investigation. During our investigation, we also identified two emerging allegations; that BGen Uribe solicited and accepted gifts from employees who received less pay than himself, and that he wore unauthorized awards. If substantiated, these allegations would violate standards summarized throughout this report. We present the applicable standards in full in Appendix A of this report. Scope and Methodology of the Investigation We conducted 23 interviews. Witnesses interviewed included BGen Uribe, his Aide, the Marine Corps Ethics Program subject matter expert (SME), the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), and several marines deployed with BGen Uribe and his Aide in Iraq.
  • On the Commander-In-Chief Power

    On the Commander-In-Chief Power

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2008 On the Commander-In-Chief Power David Luban Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 1026302 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/598 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1026302 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 477-571 (2008) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons ON THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF POWER ∗ DAVID LUBAN BRADBURY: Obviously, the Hamdan decision, Senator, does implicitly recognize that we’re in a war, that the President’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that [the] law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole case was about. LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong? BRADBURY: It’s under the law of war that we . LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong? BRADBURY: . hold the President is always right, Senator. —exchange between a U.S. Senator and a Justice Department 1 lawyer ∗ University Professor and Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University. I owe thanks to John Partridge and Sebastian Kaplan-Sears for excellent research assistance; to Greg Reichberg, Bill Mengel, and Tim Sellers for clarifying several points of American, Roman, and military history; to Marty Lederman for innumerable helpful and critical conversations; and to Vicki Jackson, Paul Kahn, Larry Solum, and Amy Sepinwall for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
  • HIPAA Security Standards: Physical Safeguards

    HIPAA Security Standards: Physical Safeguards

    Security SERIES HIPAA Security 3 Security Standards: Physical Safeguards Topics What is the Security Series? 1. The security series of papers will provide guidance from the Centers for Security 101 for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the rule titled “Security Standards Covered Entities for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information,” found at 45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, Subparts A and C. This rule, commonly known 2. as the Security Rule, was adopted to implement provisions of the Health Security Standards Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The series - Administrative will contain seven papers, each focused on a specific topic related to the Safeguards Security Rule. The papers, which cover the topics listed to the left, are designed to give HIPAA covered entities 3. insight into the Security Rule, and Compliance Deadlines assistance with implementation of the No later than April 20, 2005 Security for all covered entities except Standards security standards. This series aims to small health plans which have - Physical explain specific requirements, the thought Safeguards until no later than April 20, process behind those requirements, and 2006. 4. possible ways to address the provisions. Security Standards - Technical CMS recommends that covered entities read the first paper in this series, Safeguards “Security 101 for Covered Entities” before reading the other papers. The first paper clarifies important Security Rule concepts that will help covered entities as they plan for implementation. This third paper in the series is 5. devoted to the standards for Physical Safeguards and their implementation Security Standards - Organizational, specifications and assumes the reader has a basic understanding of the Policies and Security Rule.
  • How to Manage Physical Security Risk

    How to Manage Physical Security Risk

    How to Manage Physical Security Risk Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................3 What Is Physical Security Exactly? ...........................................................................................................4 Components of Physical Security ..............................................................................................................5 The Importance Of Physical Security ......................................................................................................5 How Physical Security Helps To Ensure Digital Safety ...................................................................7 The Most Common Physical Security Threats ....................................................................................9 How To Mitigate Physical Security Threats ...................................................................................... 10 Top Tips To Maintain Physical Security At Your Workplace .................................................... 12 Final Words....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Introduction Digital security has become the watchword of the day. As we step into the new decade, the world is visibly dependent on IT infrastructure for carrying out everyday business operations. Be it monetary transactions or information exchange,
  • BIOGRAPHY General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army, Retired

    BIOGRAPHY General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army, Retired

    BIOGRAPHY General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army, Retired General Ham is the president and chief executive officer of the Association of the United States Army. He is an experienced leader who has led at every level from platoon to geographic combatant command. He is also a member of a very small group of Army senior leaders who have risen from private to four-star general. General Ham served as an enlisted infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division before attending John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. Graduating in 1976 as a distinguished military graduate, his service has taken him to Italy, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, Qatar, Iraq and, uniquely among Army leaders, to over 40 African countries in addition to a number of diverse assignments within the United States. He commanded the First Infantry Division, the legendary Big Red One, before assuming duties as director for operations on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon where he oversaw all global operations. His first four-star command was as commanding general, U.S. Army Europe. Then in 2011, he became just the second commander of United States Africa Command where he led all U.S. military activities on the African continent ranging from combat operations in Libya to hostage rescue operations in Somalia as well as training and security assistance activities across 54 complex and diverse African nations. General Ham retired in June of 2013 after nearly 38 years of service. Immediately prior to joining the staff at AUSA, he served as the chairman of the National Commission on the Future of the Army, an eight-member panel tasked by the Congress with making recommendations on the size, force structure and capabilities of the Total Army.
  • 42, the Erosion of Civilian Control Of

    42, the Erosion of Civilian Control Of

    'The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, Department of Defense or the US Government.'" UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY Develops and inspires air and space leaders with vision for tomorrow. The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today Richard H. Kohn University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The Harmon Memorial Lectures in Military History Number Forty-Two United States Air Force Academy Colorado 1999 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Lieutenant General Hubert Reilly Harmon Lieutenant General Hubert R. Harmon was one of several distinguished Army officers to come from the Harmon family. His father graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1880 and later served as Commandant of Cadets at the Pennsylvania Military Academy. Two older brothers, Kenneth and Millard, were members of the West Point class of 1910 and 1912, respectively. The former served as Chief of the San Francisco Ordnance District during World War II; the latter reached flag rank and was lost over the Pacific during World War II while serving as Commander of the Pacific Area Army Air Forces. Hubert Harmon, born on April 3, 1882, in Chester, Pennsylvania, followed in their footsteps and graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1915. Dwight D. Eisenhower also graduated in this class, and nearly forty years later the two worked together to create the new United States Air Force Academy. Harmon left West Point with a commission in the Coast Artillery Corps, but he was able to enter the new Army air branch the following year.
  • Cyber Security and Cloud Video Surveillance

    Cyber Security and Cloud Video Surveillance

    CYBER SECURITY WHITE PAPER Page 1 of 14 Cyber Security and Cloud Video Surveillance Eagle Eye Networks | 4611 Bee Caves Rd, #200 | Austin, TX 78746 www.een.com | +1-512-473-0500 | [email protected] CYBER SECURITY WHITE PAPER Page 2 of 14 This paper explains why video surveillance system security can and should be more fully addressed within the industry, so that cyber security is not left as a problem for installers or customers to solve. Eagle Eye Networks is a leader in this respect, mitigating security concerns from the point of product research, development and deployment. Introduction Figure 1. Timeline: escalating cyber attacks on security video cameras and DVRs. Today’s networked video surveillance systems are vulnerable in many ways, and their cameras have been weaponiZed by hackers to create massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on targeted systems. Figure 1 presents a timeline of recent cyber attacks and threats affecting Internet-connected security cameras and digital video recorders (DVRs). Securing today’s networked video systems can be a complex and difficult technical challenge. However, especially for small and medium siZe businesses, it doesn’t have to be that way. Video systems and equipment can be purpose-built to constitute a pre- hardened and more easily securable system, in contrast to the current installed base of networked video technology. In September of 2016, a large French web-hosting provider reported a record-breaking 1-terabit-per- second DDoS attack against their web servers, unleashed by a collection of more than 145 thousand hacked Internet-connected video cameras and digital video recorders.