HLSS312 MIDTERM
Brice W. Schoener
American Military University
21 April 2019
- What is the role of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in securing trade in maritime ports? What are the agency’s “current” maritime challenges? Additionally, how did the Homeland Security Act of 2002 change the structure of CBP?
The custom border patrol is an integration formed by several officers in the united states to safeguard the ports around the entry of this nation. CBP is morally obligated to provide total security to cases of trade, customs, and terrorism. The custom border patrol has maintained good records in history and has a clear mission of creating a peaceful environment. As a result, people have ample time to trade and carry out their activities, hence improving the country’s economy (CBP, 2019). However, the mission of CBP changes with time following the contemporary issues experienced in 9/11. To this end, the roles of CBP were replaced with the emergence of Homeland Security.
In enhancing welfare among the people, many activities are carried out by the security departments to ensure these. Ideally, the ports hold a very vulnerable position of being attacked by terrorists. Ideally, ports hold a lot of goods and cargo that are very appealing to the sight of the terrorist. Besides, ports have ease of accessibility through land and water making it very easy for the terrorist to intervene. Following this, there is a challenge to the agencies deployed to offer security since they are at a mere risk of being attacked. More so, there was a budget reduction in the security departments, making it a challenge for those involved to responsibilities. Besides, there is insufficient coordination and a lack of transparency among the agencies offering security with the CBP.
Following several attacks on the port, the people’s lives were at a mere stake, and this called for an immediate signing of the Homeland Security act. The Act provided a clear objective of safeguarding the people to enable them to carry on with their activities, thus preventing the economy’s downturn (U.S. Congress, 2002). To reduce the vulnerability of being attacked, the Act combined 22 agencies under one roof and named it the Department of Homeland Security. With the integration, activities were efficiently conducted, making the parties of interest more empowered.
Furthermore, the Act pointed to a leader who was to influence all the agencies by providing the necessary information and keeping them focused on the end goal. More to this, the Act was at a prospect of ensuring that the mission of the 22 agencies not related to ensuring border security is not looked down upon, with the exception being approved by the congress.
References
CBP. (2019). From the Air and Sea. Retrieved from https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/air-sea#.
CBP a. (2019). About CBP. Retrieved from https://www.cbp.gov/about
U.S. Congress. (2002). Homeland Security Act of 2002. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/hr_5005_enr.pdf
- What over-arching approach to security strategy is the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 employing? (This is not a straight cut and paste answer from the law. It will require your critical analysis of the Act and its’ applications/requirements. What is the over-arching purpose of the Act?
There is no clear definition or statement made in the law about what the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 is supposed to employ. The law establishes some goals and desires; however, no clear strategy is given. To prevent limitations on innovation and allows security managers and their teams to define how to accomplish the objectives outlined in the MTSA best as best they can where they are. However, all of the security needs to start with assessments.
These assessments discuss the vulnerabilities of critical assets and infrastructure, the threats of those assets and infrastructure, and most importantly, the “…Identification of weaknesses in physical security, passenger and cargo security, structural integrity, protection systems, procedural policies, communications systems, transportation infrastructure, utilities, contingency response, and other areas as determined by the Secretary” (U.S. Congress a., 2002). These threat assessments are conducted and given to the business owner or port owner since private businesses or persons own them.
The only real specific guidance that the Act gives is what the security plans must do. These must happen tasks are broken down into three areas with several subparagraphs. These three areas are the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan, the Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, and the Vessel adds Facility Security Plans.
However, the most important one is that the plans must “… efficient, coordinated, and effective action to deter and minimize damage from a transportation security incident …” (U.S. Congress a., 2002). This is then broken down into what the federal agencies are signed to act upon and how they have to coordinate with those in power. It talks about how the plan must identify resources that are useful in their implementation of the plan, prevent national occurrences, and coordinate among other agencies to provide total security. Besides, it highlights the need to make any viable changes to the Act.
For efficient t breakthrough to the work plan, the facility plan should be updated every five years to be online with the current threats, communication systems supporting g national plans, and the current approaches to maintaining physical security and procedural policies. One thing that the entire MTSA is missing is any deterrence from cyber-type attacks. Granted, this is a newly identified concern affecting the United States, but it needs to be addressed quickly.
Following the text, it is denoted that the changes and the law mention came along with the DHS’s creation. Together with the government’s discussion and the involved agencies to work together, the DHS’s creation was a practical approach for achieving the end goal. Additionally, ensuring a plan created that focused on the threats and the vulnerabilities is essential in establishing a solid defense. I also think that this was taken so seriously and that we aren’t as unprepared as we might be because of 9/11 and the drastic steps that had to be observed to prevent the recurrence of such an incidence.
References
U.S. Congress a. (2002). Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ295/PLAW-107publ295.pdf
- How do you see the Global Maritime Transportation system changing in the next decade? With this change, what single security issue will be of universal concern and why? Think globally with your response and NOT just within the U.S.
Significant changes are anticipated in the Global Maritime Transportation system. With the discovery of new threats and illegal immigration and drugs at the U.S. Borders being a huge political topic coming into the election year. Besides, more maritime port systems, vessels, and security systems are becoming automated and moving to an online and digitally controlled system. Even though the advancement in technology has played a significant role in providing security to Maritime, it leaves a whole new battlespace and the enemies taking advantage of it. The apparent inability to protect our cyberspace is becoming more concerning, especially as everything moves to a digital setup.
Cybersecurity will be the number one topic form the foreseeable future because of the world’s reliance and dependency on this type of communication. This being the primary method of attack and vulnerability because it is cheaper, in the long run, to operate digitally, quicker, and more efficiently. However, the vulnerabilities are far more concerning. An unknown person or nation can attack our ports, vessels, or security systems and remain anonymous or even go undetected. The United States has had several encounters in recent years costing private businesses billions of dollars.
There have already been several incidents of these cyber-attacks at our ports and evidence that the DHS is either moving too slowly to fix the issue or isn’t capable of defending itself. Congressman Candice Miller from Michigan stated that the cybersecurity issues “…particularly concerning, not only from an economic standpoint but because of the dangerous cargo such as liquefied natural gas and other certain dangerous cargoes that pass through the nation’s seaports” (Paganini, 2015). In the same article, the security gaps were addressed over a year ago, in 2015, and that the DHS officials haven’t moved against them despite several digital attacks on U.S. Ports.
Iranian hackers also attacked a port in San Diego and cost multiple organizations to lose 30 million dollars. The hackers were using ransomware to make money from over 200 victims. The two Iranian hackers “would extort victim entities by demanding a ransom paid in the virtual currency Bitcoin in exchange for decryption keys for the encrypted data” (PortStrategy, 2018). This type of control over the personnel in charge of these companies is scary enough, but imagine the hackers can take control of a vessel and divert the goods to their ports. Imagine hackers being able to crash boats into ports if the control becomes automated. The concern is that the DHS needs to devote serious time and effort to this risk because it is quickly becoming the most cost-effective and better approach to attack the United States.
References
Paganini, P. (2015). U.S. Ports – Cyber Attacks Can Cause the Release of Dangerous Chemicals. Retrieved from https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/40960/security/us-ports-vulnerable-hacking.html
Port Strategy. (2018). Iranian Hackers Charged Over U.S. Port Attack. Retrieved from https://www.portstrategy.com/news101/world/americas/iranian-hackers-charged-over-san-diego-attack