Can Cybersecurity Prevent Insider Threats? Is Insider Threat Prevention important?

I have always wondered where in the subject of Cybersecurity my work might apply. I wondered until I came upon one Cybersecurity Company’s Behavioral Analysis Page.

Most Cybersecurity websites have a Behavioral Analysis Page, usually listed among their client benefits is a statement offering the following: “Predict insider threats, fraud, and financial crime inside your organization and stop them before they happen.” Focusing to the last part of that statement, “stop them before they happen.” The only reliable way to accomplish this objective is with our scientifically-validated Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS). The following is a short dissertation as to why this is true. By reading this, you will achieve an insight hidden until now.

The Nikolas Cruz shooting in Parkland, Florida is systematic as to why our systems continue to fail their “prevention” objectives whether due to a shooting or preventing fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind.

The Critical Aggression Prevention System identifies any individual who is moving away from a trusted position for an “aggressive” path, further disconnecting from his/her responsibilities to, and/or obligation/allegiance to his/her employer.

I will take moment to illustrate why these systems do not prevent violence, then I will apply the same principles to describe why they do not prevent fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind

The Problem: Moment of Commitment

Seldom discussed within all security scenarios is an unspoken Hard Truth: From the Moment of Commitment (When an assailant decides to pull his weapon and starts shooting) to the moment when the first round is discharged is only 2 seconds! Within 5 seconds the result will be dead, dying and/or wounded victims! No Security or Law Enforcement can be on scene within those horrific first 2 seconds! They will arrive on scene stepping over those slain during those horrific first few seconds. This is unacceptable!

There is no reaction faster than an action. If you are reacting to fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind, you are already too late! We must get out in front of the horrific Moment of Commitment so as to prevent an incident, whether a shooting or fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind.

The Problem: Mental Health Assessments

Sadly, you cannot rely on Mental Health Assessments. Contrary to what the media would like you to believe, they are notoriously inaccurate. Although these statements are directed toward preventing violence, the same principles apply to preventing fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind.

?                The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007 states, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.” In fact, they determined the people with mental illness tended to be the victims of this behavior, not the perpetrators of it.

?                The shooter at Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho, was Mental Health Assessed on three different occasions and in each occasion, he was determined to be “Depressed and anxious, but not at risk of hurting himself or others.” Incidentally, Nikolas Cruz, the shooter at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School, was also Mental Health Assessed and was deemed to be “not at risk of hurting himself or others.”

?                Finally, Jared Lee Loughner, was charged with 19 counts of murder and attempted murder and shot Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords, near Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011. Loughner clearly had a Thought Disorder and was probably Schizophrenic, one of the scariest of mental illnesses, however, we know that of all Schizophrenics only 0.002% have murdered another person. How do we get from the 0.002% of Schizophrenics who would murder people, to this is your next shooter? You can’t!

The Problem: Probabilities Versus Predictabilities

Here lies the key problem with preventing fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind. The problem is the difference between “Probabilities” and “Predictabilities.” “Probability” states that “within a certain group of individuals, there is a higher probability of a shooter or in your case, a higher probability of a person who will perpetrate fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind. However, it does not tell us who the next shooter is, or who is the next person to perpetrate fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind!

With Probabilities, when we reverse this logic, it doesn’t hold any value for us. To illustrate this point, we use the current example of Nikolas Cruz. However, these principles also apply to acts of fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind.

?                Nikolas Cruz recently loss of his mother. How many people who lose their mother to flu illness follow that experience by murdering people? Less than one percent?

?                Nikolas Cruz was expelled from school. How many people who are expelled from school follow that experience by murdering people? Less than one percent?

?                Nikolas Cruz may have a mental disorder. Certainly, his legal defense team will try to make a case for insanity, but that doesn’t change the fact that mental health “assessments” are not good predictors of future shooters.

The Solution: Using Predictabilities

The US Secret Service and the FBI agree, “Predictability” can reliably identify a future shooter by identifying someone on the path to violence. This process is not “absolute” 100%, but it is “scientifically reliable.”

The most thorough study ever conducted on the topic of violence in schools was a collaboration between the US Secret Service, Dept of Education and the National Institute of Justice. It was call the “Safe School Initiative Study” and it found that the only “reliable” way to identify a future shooter was to identify someone “on the path to violence.” Backing this assessment, in December of 2013, Andre Simmons, the Chief of the FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center/Behavioral Analysis Unit stated that the FBI’s ability to prevent violence is predicated on “identifying a person who is on a pathway to violence.”

There is a solution using predictabilities . . . We have been building this solution over the past 24 years using predictabilities. We use only scientifically-validated, evidence-based objective measurable observables, not subjective references like scary, strange, weird and menacing. Because we do not use mental Health assessments, nor culture, gender, education, age, sexual orientation, position in a community for our assessments of Aggressive Behavior, we don’t contravene HIPAA, FERPA or privacy regulations, thus you can record and track “Aggressive Behavior” with a certain impunity.

Our scientifically validated Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) can not only prevent violence but also fraud, the illegal selling of intellectual property, undermining Cybersecurity, financial crime, and/or insider threats of any kind.

Our Comprehensive CAPS Video offered a complete understanding of how and why our system works: https://www.aggressionmanagement.com/critical-aggression-prevention-system-comprehensive-video.html

Please reach out to me to learn more or answer any questions that you may have. I can be reached at 407-718-5637.