COAG’s new focus on security: Is Australia safe & secure?
"We need to ensure the personnel applying the security measures are highly trained and motivated. The days of using private security firms, lowly paid workers behind our security checkpoints are well and truly over." Mike Carmody, ABC News, August 5, 2017. Mr. Carmody is former chief of security for the Federal Airports Corporation, Sydney Airport.
July was a busy month. That was even before July 26, when Australian security agencies received intelligence from a ‘Five Eyes’ partner advising of “one of the most sophisticated plots that has ever been attempted on Australian soil”, according to Deputy Commissioner Phelan, Australian Federal Police. The information came eleven days after an alleged, failed attempt to get a bomb on an Etihad flight. It was to be another three days before search warrants were executed across Sydney from where four suspects were taken into custody. During those first three days, Australian police constructed a replica of the device and tried to smuggle it aboard a plane in order to test security. With “100 per cent success rate’’ of detection, it suggested the device would never have made it on to a plane.
On July 30, travelling from Sydney to Perth I was aware of the counter-terrorism operation and Prime Minister Turnbull’s early morning warnings to expect delays due to enhanced screening. Yet, the national terrorism threat level continued to sit at ‘probable’, despite police confirming there was an active plot and only just commencing their investigation. They made it clear to the public that it was credible and serious. It is now apparent the Government had confirmed that a terrorist action was underway, yet did not raise the National Terrorism Threat Level to ‘expected’. It can therefore be concluded that ASIO or police never had an ‘expectation’ that an attack could occur.
On August 3, eight days after the first report of the plot, the Prime Minister advised publicly, from Perth, that all was confirmed as safe and that the Director-General of ASIO had publicly advised that a threat level to aviation had been “downgraded from ‘probable’ to ‘possible’”. The Prime Minister was misleading in making this reference.
The concern I raise here is that there was no public announcement that a change had been made. Indeed, nor is there a reference to a unique ‘aviation threat level' in National Transport Security Plan guidelines or templates. Nor within the National Security Terrorism Threat Level System. However, if there is a distinct aviation sector terrorism threat level, how can it be considered lower than that of the national level? Aviation and public transport is a staple target of terrorist activity. Further, if they raise one level, should not all levels be raised accordingly? I’m not trying to be obtuse. As a long time security practitioner, if I don’t understand how the national terrorism threat level system is working, then how is the public supposed to know?
As it happens, July was indeed also a busy month for other reasons. Namely, it was a month for major security industry events. Our very broad exposure to industry people and their many areas of interest and research, arms us with insight and knowledge beyond what many may hear in a year. Be it INTERPOL World, Security Expo, RSA APJ, PLuS Global Security Alliance, CIVSEC18 or Cyber in Business. These events lay out a human, technical, cyber and global threat landscape that is overwhelming in magnitude and despite being an island continent, is increasingly threatening Australia's national security and public safety. Yet, the intensity around generating nuanced and informed public debate, with the intention of building a societal resiliency is severely lacking. The political elite, including the Prime Minister is selling a ‘misleading’ message by assuring the public they are being kept safe.
Security should be an enabler. Not a reason or cause for creating new or alternative risk or ignoring risk selectively. With airport security measures creating extended lines in airport terminals, the risk is simply displaced to the pre-screening areas. With the new Crowded Places Guidelines soon to be announced by Malcolm Turnbull it will be interesting to see how they apply at airports, train stations and stadiums if the focus shifts to screening rather than efficient processing.
In this issue, we cover COAG’s new focus on security, Fraser Duff introduces 10 principles for defending yourself from an attacker, in addition to interviews with Data61’s CEO Adrian Turner, Kaspersky Lab’s Noushin Shabab, Garry Barnes and event reviews including for INTERPOL World, PLuS Alliance, Philippines Connect and Blackhat.
This issue highlights that the cyber-physical economy will be generated and underpinned by a digital economy, that will ultimately become seamless, providing a suitable and superior user experience. But there will be trial and error, as it will also need to be safe and secure. The digital government and digital economy will therefore need to be underpinned by trust. Trust needs to be a core design principle and security needs to be a forethought, rather than an afterthought. It is difficult not to be sceptical with our political leaders, including the likes of Donald Trump or the asymmetric hybrid warfare tactics being played out by China and Russia. When security policy is guided and dictated by politicians and military, not only is trust likely to be lost, but so is the legitimacy that the security discipline should be garnering for enhanced societal resiliency. Much is to be lost, including a free society.
And on that note, as always, we provide plenty of thought provoking material and there is so much more to touch on. Stay tuned with us as we continue to explore, educate, entertain and most importantly, engage.
Chris Cubbage
Executive Editor