Solutions for a New Era

At first clanse this question seems very easy to answer and probably is if one only looks at the question at face value. One can say that everything in the world changed after 9/11 and of course they would be correct. However the question here is to analysis the ?why? of the changes and more specificallly for this class, the ?why? for protective services.

The required book for this course,?Executive Protectioin: New Solutions for a New Era?, does a good job of talking about the changes to protective services after 9/11 but leaves some the the analysis detail out that gets down to the root of the issue. As an example the book mentions that after 9/11 hard targets were became more secure and therefore these targets were now less attractive to terror groups and these groups would more than likely turn their attention to softer, all be it still valuable, targets. These softer targets would be in the form of high profile individuals. Maybe CEO?s or perhaps the actually facility of a company. The CEO or the facility itself if distroyed would still be a victory for the group even if it wasn?t a government individual or facility. It is this statement that I just made where we can now start to think about the detailed analysis, victory over the groups enemy and the victory has nothing to do with the government. Think about this for a little while. The book also mentions how terror groups also started an evalutionary process of their own, going from a state sponsored system to a more religious/ideological system. This meant that the battle fields we fight on where going to be different. No one nation state would be the battle field but the whole world now becomes the battle field because of shared religious/ideological beliefs not because of a set of borders. One last observation from the book that I really took to heart is that 9/11 was conducted by a small group of very focused individuals, not a large military force, and that a small band of individuals can produce a tremendous amount of damage and this damage can come from any direction.

One of the other required readings, ?The World of 9/11: Four Years Later?, was somewhat difficult for me to read at first because I simply could not understand, at the first reading, what it had to do with either book chapter required or for this question. Upon the second reading of the paper I began to do a more detailed analysis of what the paper was saying and this is where I figured out the suddle details that where in the paper. This paper has to do with the vulnerability of the United States (US) and how the US was way more vulnerable, I think, than most people thought. After the attacks the President Bush became very narrow focused and his whole reality became one of get the bad guy no matter what. Now I don?t neccesarily have an issue with that mind set as long as it doesn?t interfere with the other duties of a US President. In his case I think this is exactly what happened and many mistakes were made on his and his administrations part that would eventually show that even after 9/11 the US was still very vulnerable and would be unable to respond to any major event, to include another terror attack on US soil. This in turn caused US citizens to lose confidence in President Bush and this allowed the terror groups to feel and be more powerful and aggressive.

There are some key reasons why protective services changed after 9/11. First the attack on 9/11 did not just occur on the US military, it also occurred on a business, the twin towers. Civilian and many high profile civilians. Protective services, I believe, looked at this attacks and realized that their principals were now a part of the fight and they were now a part of the new battle field. I also believe that they saw the vulnerability of the US here at home and should have questioned the vulnerability of their principals on trips abroad. The government could not be depended on to be the sole protector of all US citizens and that high profile individuals would require and increase in protective services and this would now mean a change in the way business was being done to protect the principals on this new battle field.

References:

Oatman, R.L. (2006). ?Executive Protection: New Solutions for a New Era? (Rev. ed.) Arnold, MD: Noble House

GlobalSecurity.org. (2005). ?The World of 9/11: Four Years Later?. Document posted in American Military University SCMT 536 online classroom.

(#2 Need 250 Word Response 1 reference)

“Executive protection (EP), also known as close protection, refers to security and risk mitigation measures taken to ensure the safety of VIPs or other individuals who may be exposed to elevated personal risk because of their employment, high-profile status, net worth, affiliations or geographical location” (Zelvin, 2011). The Protective Service has become more challenging due to the nut cases in the world. The lower classes or third world nations see the United States as a rich and prosperity nation. The citizens these third world nations see the wealthy members of the United States as easy picking.

As companies look for ways to make more money, they are turning to third world nations for workers that will work for lower wages (Miller, 2003).

The practical value of executive protection consists of the following:

Assets Protection-The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is just as much an asset as the inventory and information assets. Without the CEO the company cannot effectively operate. The Executive Protection (EP) specialist must conduct a risk assessment of the CEO to determine the threat level and how much protection the CEO needs (Oatman, 2006).

Some of these needs could be the CEO driven to work and home by security personnel in a fortified vehicle, secured parking garages away from the public and fellow employees, separate elevators that require a swipe card to entrance to this elevator, home security systems with roving security patrol. The mail scanned and then mark in a way that the CEO secretary knows that the mail has been scanned. Executive protection is a 24-hour comprehensive view of every movement the CEO and his family makes whether at the office, on the drive to and from home, the kids school, going on the town for the evening (concert or dining) (Oatman, 2006).

Assets Optimization-The CEO has to be proactive in their lives. They need to take risks and be aware of their surroundings. Because the world has changed the CEO should not be afraid to travel abroad to find new customers for their merchandise. A good EP specialist is aware of the current world threat tempo (Oatman, 2006).

Return on Investment-A good EP program allows the CEO to be more productive because they do not have worry about threats. This leads to less company distractions and more productivity (Oatman, 2006).

An incident that causes minor damage can cause the public to view the company as having a problem. This also could cause loss of sales and lower stock prices on Wall Street (Oatman, 2006).

Guiding Rules-A EP must use three rules to form a good protective program. Be systemic, not symptomatic which is looking at the big picture and how the little pieces fit in and not worrying about all the individual pieces. Be proactive, not reactive which is anticipating a problem before it becomes a problem. It is like the saying, “Do not close the barn doors after the horses have escaped”. Choose a flight, not a fight which is choose an escape route and plan to avoid a fight when possible and not stay to fight the threat (Oatman, 2006).

A good EP specialist needs to be aware of the surroundings, plan for the unexpected, always plan an escape route, and establish good security measures no matter the protectee is.

Bibliography

LubLin, J. S. (2008, June 9). Keeping the CEO Safe Can Be Costly. Retrieved from The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121296823263355759

Miller, S. E. (2003). After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington’s Struggle to Improve Homeland Security. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 8-11.

Oatman, R. L. (2006). Executive Protection: New Solutions for a New Era. Baltimore: Noble House.

The World of 9/11: Four Years Later. (2005, September 13). Retrieved from Global Security: https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/ne…

Zelvin, E. (2011, November 19). Executive Protection. Retrieved from New York: Management Resources, Ltd: https://www.sleuthsayers.org/2011/11/executive-pro…

(#3 Need 250 Word Response 1 reference)

Hate speech is defined as threatening or abusive verbal or written communication expressing prejudice that is targeted towards groups or individuals on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation or other characteristics. Hate speech is not a new phenomenon but has increased significantly over the past thirty years to correspond with the growth of Internet usage worldwide. The Internet has provided a vehicle for the spread of hate speech starting with bulletin board services and chat rooms from the early days of the Internet to websites to email, websites and to social media platforms. Hate groups are often, but not always, organized by political groups with the intent to spread their particular message or manifesto.

In the United States, there is no specific definition of hate speech. Most forms of speech are protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment of Free Speech, which has led to a proliferation of online hate speech sites in the United States (Yar, 2006). However, the U.S. courts have ruled that while speech may be protected, it is unlawful to threaten or cause harm as a result of the speech. While it is impossible to eliminate hate speech from the Internet due to its open nature and lack of overall governance, many Internet and social media platforms such as Google and Facebook prohibit the posting or sharing of hate speech as part of their terms of service. For example, if a user on YouTube posts hate speech, their content will be removed and the user will receive two warnings before being banned from the service (Hate speech policy, 2019).

The United States Government has taken several steps to ban the sexual representation of minors over the past 25 years. In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act which defined online child pornography as obscene material and therefore prohibited by law (Yar, 2006). Similar statues on child pornography exist in other countries including Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Taiwan, South Africa and Australia, among others. Obscene material is usually defined as material featuring young children. While teenagers are also at risk for sexual representation online, it is more difficult to extend prohibitions on them as they can appear to be at the age of consent. Also, age of consent varies between countries, further complicating regulation and law enforcement efforts.

Cyberstalking and online pedophilia are two areas of cybercrime that have received much attention in recent years. Cyberstalking is defined as ‘the repeated use of the Internet, email or related digital electronic communication devices to annoy, alarm, or threaten a specific individual’ (Yar, 2006). While stalking activity is not new, the Internet provides new ways for the stalker to harass victims through email and social media platforms, and often through anonymous means. For pedophilia, the Internet has provided a method to distribute material that was not available 30 years ago, and also with anonymity. The Internet also provides an avenue and access to minors to “groom” them into eventual pedophilia activity (Yar, 2006). While cyberstalking and pedophilia are not necessarily widespread endemic issues, the Internet has enabled both crimes by giving the perpetrators more access to their victims.

References

Hate speech policy. (2019). Retrieved from YouTube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?…

Yar, M. (2006). Cybercrime and Society. London: Sage Publications.

(#4 Need 250 Word Response 1 reference)

Should hate speech be banned from the Internet, or are the dangers of political censorship too great?

Hate speech refers to a threatening statement or abusive language showing prejudice towards a particular community or group of people. In recent times, this phenomenon is increasing especially on the internet and social media websites. It has led to many unfortunate incidents in recent times where people have committed a criminal act impacting a certain community (Yaraghi, 2017). Therefore, many countries such as Germany and Canada have banned any kind of material that is objectively insulting the population.

The hate speech is a continuous threat towards world peace for many reasons. The reason behind this is most of the people in the 21st century rely on social media knowledge and internet blog information (Hern, 2019). They make up their minds on the basis of this information which can lead to a preconceived opinion regarding the particular community. This can impact world peace due to hatred behavior with one another on the basis of religion, sect, color, creed, and caste. However, the other side of the story is that at times freedom of speech is mixed with hatred behavior to implement political censorship for own agenda. The freedom of speech has different dimensions at different times which confuses the situations for decision-makers. Therefore, the banning of hate speech is necessary on the internet, however, it must be done on the basis to protect the peace of the world instead of political advantages.

How far should prohibitions on sexual representations of minors be extended?

The sexual representation of minors is one of the critical issues of the internet world. Despite the strict prohibitions led by governments and internet search engines, the phenomenon of child pornography is ever rising (Anonymous, 2018). It also results in minor rape incidents where people film the whole activity to sell it online. Therefore, sexual representation so minor on the internet and anywhere else must be called as illegal to stop this act. This will help the authorities to take action without any discrimination in case any such incident, business or website is found. Apart from this, it would be ideal to term child pornography viewing as a crime too to stop this rising issue in the world. Anyone who possesses such material must be taken under observation and must face the further legal process.

Are the concerns about internet stalking and pedophilia mere moral panics and unwarranted over-reaction to a marginal crime problem?

The concerns related to internet stalking can be termed as an overreaction to a marginal crime problem. People who raise voice regarding the internet stalking seemingly behave pessimist related to the situation. At times, the debates and allegations made by the anti-internet stalking commentators seem to be exaggerated and misleading. People usually stalk the other profiles to know what the other person thinking is and what he or she likes to share with its friends. Therefore, the concerns shown to this act can merely be called an overreaction. However, this isn’t the case when it comes to pedophilia or attraction to the child who hasn’t reach puberty. It is a psychiatric problem with the people that look to attack minor children to fulfill their sexual desires. The concerns related to this psychiatric disease are true in nature as it can cause many criminal acts in the environment (Majid, 2006). Most of the people affected by pedophilia are involved in criminal acts such as kidnapping, rape, and murder of the kids who have not reached puberty. Therefore, we must conclude to the fact that these concerns are not over-reaction when they collaborate pedophilia with criminal issues.

References

Anonymous. (2018). Explicit sex ads appeared in a smartphone app for children. Retrieved 10 October 2019, from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/my-talking-tom-game-explicit-sex-ads-irresponsibly-placed-in-smartphone-app-for-children-a6766476.html

Hern, A. (2019). Internet crackdown raises fears for free speech in Britain. Retrieved 10 October 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/08/online-laws-threaten-freedom-of-speech-of-millions-of-britons

Yaraghi, N. (2017). Regulating free speech on social media is dangerous and futile. Retrieved 10 October 2019, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/09/21/regulating-free-speech-on-social-media-is-dangerous-and-futile/

Majid, Y. SAGE Publications Ltd. (2006). Cybercrime and Society (3rd ed.). London.

Sample Solution

ACED ESSAYS