Terrorism, Insider Threats, and Homeland Security Policy

Introduction

Although terrorism, insider threats, and homeland security are not new concepts, they have all assumed new importance and relevance in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. In response, the U.S. government has implemented a number of strategies designed to provide protections against threats to national security. To determine the facts about these initiatives, this paper reviews the literature to describe the functions of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and its implications for critical infrastructure security. In addition, a discussion concerning the reasons private sector enterprises need to understand and create protocols for insider threats is followed by an assessment of the potential of terrorism and the measures the U.S. can take in the event domestic or international threats are identified. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues is presented in the conclusion.

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan and Critical Infrastructure Security

The need to develop mechanisms to protect the nation's critical infrastructure has long been recognized by U.S. political leaders. Former President John F. Kennedy established the National Communications System in 1962 to ensure the federal government would be able to communicate effectively during emergencies, following the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war (Hart & Ramsey, 2011). This initiative was followed by the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1979, which was tasked with ensuring civil defense protocols and risk reduction for earthquakes and hurricanes (Hart & Ramsey, 2011). The importance of these initiatives became increasingly apparent following the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building attack in Oklahoma City in 1995. These and other high-profile international terrorism incidents prompted the U.S. government to take stronger measures to protect the nation's critical infrastructure. In this regard, Hart and Ramsey report that, "In 1996, President Clinton established the Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. The work of the commission resulted in the definition of eight critical infrastructure sectors in Presidential Decision Directive 63 in 1998" (2011, p. 37).

These initiatives were all intended to provide layers of protection for the nation's critical infrastructure, but their effectiveness was called into question following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. By 2006, the need for heightened protections for the nation's critical infrastructure resulted in the passage of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, which was revised in 2009 and again in 2013. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the current version of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan is:

. . . streamlined and adaptable to the current risk, policy, and strategic environments [and] provides the foundation for an integrated and collaborative approach to achieve the vision of [a] Nation in which physical and cyber critical infrastructure remain secure and resilient, with vulnerabilities reduced, consequences minimized, threats identified and disrupted, and response and recovery hastened. (National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 2018, para. 2)

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan approved in 2013 conforms with the requirements of Presidential Policy Directive 21: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, and was developed through collaboration between key stakeholders in the public and private sectors (National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 2018). The fact that no other September 11-type terrorist attacks have taken place on U.S. soil indicates that this initiative is having its intended effect, but companies are also faced with other types of threats — most especially insider threats, as discussed further below.

Why Companies Must Understand and Address Insider Threats

Despite the growing recognition that insider threats represent a clear and present danger to private sector companies, far too many continue to rely on conventional security investigations when hiring new employees. Indeed, many of the protocols typically used by companies — such as background checks — are easily circumvented. As Catrantzos (2010) emphasizes, "Most organizations rely precisely on these sentinels as the first, last, and only line of defense. After all, it is their assigned job" (p. 3). Even though these protocols have proven largely ineffective in the past and are resented by honest and trusted employees, most companies continue to rely on them to the exclusion of other approaches (Catrantzos, 2010).

While the motivations for employees to violate the trust placed in them by their employers vary widely, the impact is essentially the same. As Catrantzos (2010) notes, "Essentially, the threat lies in the potential that a trusted employee may betray their obligations and allegiances to their employer and conduct sabotage or espionage against them" (p. 3). Such insider threats can take a number of different forms, including outright theft, less discernible acts of sabotage, or blatant workplace violence (Catrantzos, 2010). Unfortunately, the owners of many companies simply do not realize the potential for insiders to sabotage their business operations until it is too late (Catrantzos, 2010).

Conclusion

The research showed that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been tasked with providing comprehensive protections for the nation's critical infrastructure, and this need has become increasingly apparent as acts of terrorism continue to escalate around the world. The research also showed that the nature of terrorism has changed in substantive ways in recent years, with growing numbers of terrorists simply using vehicles to kill large numbers of innocent people. Anticipating and protecting against these types of terrorist threats is exceedingly difficult, and it is clear that the nation's critical infrastructure remains at risk as long as people seek to harm the United States and its citizens.

References

Catrantzos, N. (2010, May). No dark corners: A different answer to insider threats. Homeland Security Affairs, 6(2), 3–5.

Hart, S. & Ramsay, J. D. (2011, January 1). A guide for homeland security instructors preparing physical critical infrastructure protection courses. Homeland Security Affairs, 7(1), 37–41.

National Infrastructure Protection Plan. (2018). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan.

Prevent terrorism and enhance security. (2018). Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/prevent-terrorism-and-enhance-security.