Security in Government and Private Institutions The Aftermath of 9/11 Essay Example

Security in Government and Private Institutions: The Aftermath of 9/11 Essay The world-infamous 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have forever changed the way people look at security measures.   This is not to say that security had been more lenient prior to these attacks, but the fact remains that everybody – especially those occupying sensitive posts in government – has tightened the security measures surrounding them.   The apparent anxiety that the 9/11 attacks have caused is not without basis.Everyday in the world today, we read about kidnappings, killings, and terrorism.   If one reads newspapers and watches television, it would be easy to conclude that there is no safe place for mankind to stay anymore. It is not, therefore, surprising if a huge chunk of the government budget is being eaten by security.   It is a must, considering that government entities, and especially military bases, are prime targets for attacks.Indeed, the United States government has a reason to fear terrorism. After all, it has attacke d its prime military base a few years back. Although, the clear picture of the 9/11 attacks has yet to be publicly acknowledged, one cannot – and should not erase from memory the pulverized buildings of the Twin Towers, together with the dead bodies littered all over Ground Zero.Following the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration scrambled to announce to the world that it is waging war against terrorists. It went on to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, countries suspected of coddling terrorists. Iraq was attacked primarily because of Saddam Hussein who was suspected of concealing nuclear weapons intended for mass destruction. Attacks on Afghanistan followed suit, and this time it is in pursuit of the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden who happens to be of Saudi Arabian descent.Consequently, security in government-owned and -controlled buildings has been tightened.   This is not to discount the fact that private institutions are not totally safe.   After al l, when something exploded in the twin towers of the World Trade Center, its proponents did not mark out who was going to be killed and spared. It goes without saying that terrorism knows no discrimination. As long as one is within the trajectory of target, he or she is not safe from harm.It is therefore logical to assume that danger is everywhere. It is a-given, however, that highly-classified government institutions, such as the Pentagon and other U.S. Military bases, are more prone to terrorist attacks and imminent danger than private entities (Miller, 2001).   This paper will then comparatively tackle the issue of the security measures being implemented in both government entities and private companies, especially following the 9/11 attacks.Statement of the ProblemHave the level of security and types of measure increased in public and private institutions after the 9/11 attacks?Data Presentation and AnalysisThe number of literature on terrorism and security naturally shot up a fter the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the world has changed since September 11, 2001. The Bush administration thinks that America has remained a nation at risk to terrorist attacks and will remain at risk for the foreseeable future. Given all threat conditions, the American people must remain vigilant, prepared, and ready to deter terrorist attacks (whitehouse.gov, 2006).Prior to Iraq’s Hussein’s capture, U.S. intelligence agencies, independent analysts and arms control organizations have already been mapping possible weapons of mass destruction facilities in Iraq.   They have allegedly found evidence that Hussein has rebuilt at least some facilities that were earlier destroyed in military strikes or dismantled by U.N. weapons inspectors. This is presumably one reason why the U.S. government has been itching to seize Hussein and attack Iraq.Although U.S. officials and many private analysts said the satellite images cannot definitively determine what activities are going on inside Iraqi facilities, this has not stopped the government from attacking Hussein’s country.Inevitably, this reaction by the U.S. government has caused massive criticism worldwide.   Nonetheless, Hussein was captured, Iraq was bombed, and the Bush Administration finally conceded that, indeed, the claim that Iraq was keeping weapons for mass destruction was a false alarm. America’s habit of championing the freedom of the world has brought many enemies to its shore.   From among its citizens themselves, enemies have been formed. It then left American society more vulnerable to security risks. The terrorists of late 2001 took advantage of the weaknesses of U.S. security—its international borders, its immigration policies and its financial management systems (csa.com, 2005).But terrorism is not the only threat to the American people.   The other issue threats are espionage, proliferation, economic espionage, targeting the national information infrastructure, targeting the U.S. government, perception management, and foreign intelligence activities (fbi.gov, 2006).On the other hand, even private entities have become vulnerable to security risks.   Although terrorism may not rank high among the threats, the advent of technology has brought even private companies closer to danger.In the case of private companies, the biggest threat to their existence comes through cyberspace. Internet usage has brought monumental problems to these institutions that even those who are manning the security of private companies are already alert on terrorist activities that may be forward through cyberspace. In other words, the threats to American security have been getting more perilous.Recent historical events have left America in pain. As discussed earlier, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified several issue threats prevalent in American society today.Terrorism is foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated activities that: involv e violent acts, dangerous to human life, that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or   to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and occur totally outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum (fbi.gov,2006).Espionage concerns foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity directed at the U.S. government or U.S. corporations, establishments, or persons, which involves the identification, targeting and collection of U.S. National defense information (fbi.gov, 2006).On the other hand, proliferation consists of foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity directed at the U.S. government or U.S. corporations, establishments or persons, which involves: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to include chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and delivery systems of those weapons of mass destruction; or the proliferation of advanced conventional weapons (fbi.gov,2006).According to the FBI, one of the most prevalent security risks in the private sector concerns economic espionage.   This is actually about foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity directed at†¦U.S. corporations, establishments, or persons, which involves:   the unlawful or clandestine targeting or acquisition of sensitive financial, trade or economic policy information, proprietary economic information, or critical technologies; or the unlawful or clandestine targeting or influencing of sensitiv e economic policy decisions (fbi.gov, 2006).There is also what analysts call perception management, which involves a foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity directed at†¦U.S. corporations, establishments, or persons, which involves manipulating information, communicating false information, or propagating deceptive information and communications designed to distort the perception of the public regarding†¦economic strategies (fbi.gov,2006).Alternatively, the targeting of the national information infrastructure concerns foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity directed at the U.S. Government or U.S. Corporations, establishments, or persons, which involves the targeting of facilities, personnel, information, or computer, cable, satellite, or telecommunications systems which are associated with the national information infrastructure(fbi.gov, 2006).Then there’s targeting of the U.S. government by foreig n power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity directed at the U.S. government or U.S. corporations, establishments, or persons, which involves the targeting of government programs, information, or facilities or the targeting or personnel of the U.S. intelligence community, U.S. foreign affairs or economic affairs community, or the U.S. defense establishment and related activities of national preparedness (fbi.gov, 2006).Finally, foreign intelligence activities concerns foreign power-sponsored or foreign power-coordinated intelligence activity conducted in the U.S. or directed against the government, or U.S. corporations, establishments, or persons, that is not described by or included in the other issue threats (fbi.gov, 2006).Consequently, virtually all public and private sector entities need updated threat assessments and a plan to mitigate threat and further reduce their risks. Today, many of America’s businesses with critical infrastructures and ass ets are taking a proactive approach to security by developing and maintaining a comprehensive security and crisis program.Admittedly, however, many private companies are still inadequately prepared to counter risks. Too little attention is paid to security; too few resources are devoted to it. According to the director of the Institute for Security Technology Studies (ISTS) at Dartmouth College, Michael Vatis, security everywhere has beefed up since the 9/11 attacks â€Å"†¦more companies have taken needed steps but we’re not close to where we need to be. It’s just not where we must beCertainly, there’s more attention to the issue than two, three, four years ago. The specter of threats is growing. There are more attacks. The sophistication of those attacks is growing. There are terrorist groups to deal with. Foreign nation states are using cyber technologies.† (Gaudin, 2002)Targets usually hit by cyber attacks are critical infrastructures. This is be cause that’s where the impact would be the broadest and most severe, and this applied even to U.S. government facilities offshore.Take for example a U.S. Military Base in Iraq.   According to some officials, the military has completed a review of base security throughout Iraq in wake of insurgency attacks on facilities that included both Iraqi and U.S. troops. New regulations have been put in place and this meant increase in the screening of visitors and limit access to Iraqis who train or work in military bases (worldtribune.com).Big targets also include banks and other financial houses because of their impact on the economy. Recognizing the urgent challenge of Department for Homeland Defense (DHS), many private companies have also devoted their efforts to ongoing research. In fact, the Science and Technology Directorate of the DHS itself is continuing to transfer cutting-edge technological resources to federal, state, and local officials in order to strengthen the capabil ities of protecting the homeland. In the future, science and technology will serve as intelligent tools for national security (Rothman, 2003).Indeed, this is not the time for the United States of America to be lax as far as security is concerned. Now, risks are not only critical among government entities.   Even private companies have become susceptible to threats and since they are the most unprepared, they are most likely to be targets when attacks are deployed.ConclusionAnyone can be vulnerable to terrorist attacks or other security threats.Intelligence services of nations who view themselves as rivals seek out classified U.S. government information. Moreover, the secrets of the American economy have also become attractive targets of intelligence services.   This is primarily because the cost of economic espionage is cheaper than research and development. Intelligence services, utilizing the cyberspace, are extremely sophisticated and have become extensive resources to carry out operations.However, once a nation or corporation believes its secrets have been compromised, it makes changes to minimize damage; therefore, intelligence services conceal their operations to maximize their efforts. This is what has been happening in America since the 9/11 attacks. It is therefore normal that the government has done its best to reduce risk vulnerabilities.   However, it must be highly noted that American citizens, corporations or institutions with access to restricted information can be a target of an intelligence service. After all, they are potential targets of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world.In the end, it is safe to conclude that security measures in American institutions – both government and privately owned – have been finely tuned, especially after the destructive 9/11 attacks. However, there is still so much to be done to eliminate more danger and threats, and this is where the government is currently concentrating their efforts o n.   Even private companies are already investing huge sums to upgrade their security procedures.   The fact is, the threat to security is continuing and everybody must exert extra effort in helping minimize, if not curb, it.