Future Crimes

By Mark Young

Can you imagine a world in which there is nowhere to hide? Where your expectation of privacy no longer exists? Where all your secrets might be revealed to the world? My current work in progress—Off The Grid, scheduled for release in December, 2011—is about these issues. A world in which a cop must live Off The Grid in order to survive a formidable opponent.

As I write this novel, my research keeps taking me down some very strange avenues of science, places at first glance that seem unbelievable. For example, terrorist—aided by recent developments in technology—might be able to carry weapons of mass destruction small enough to hide inside a suitcase. Surveillance capabilities that track and record a person’s life in minute detail using technology being developed right now. Technology so minuscule that the human eye may never detect it.

For a moment, let us consider a familiar security risk we deal with everyday—the computer. Everyone is aware of the potential risk when we use the internet. Still, we rely on this technology for personal things like paying our bills, making purchase, ordering pharmaceuticals, or publishing articles like this one. Governments rely on the integrators of this system, always trying to make sure they have the very latest cyber security system in place. Yet, hackers still break through these firewalls, stealing our identities, our money, and our information. Here are a few of the headlines over the last seven months:

• Serial hacker admits breaching Federal Reserve computers (April 19, 2011)
• Cyber attack forces ORNL to shut down Internet access (April 19, 2011)
• Federal Reserve Hacker Steals 400,000 Credit Card Numbers (November 19, 2010)
• $9m RBS WorldPay hack mastermind avoids jail (September 10, 2010)

We expect our communications to be protected by the service providers we use. Supposedly, our means of communications is protected by an unbreakable cryptographic system. We expect to be protected when we chat on our cell phones, transfer money into a checking account, or use a credit card. But yet, these crimes persist.

Quantum computers and nanotechnology might make matters even worse unless new safeguards are put into place in the very near future. Quantum computer (QC) technology—small enough to be contained in tiny molecular structures—may someday outmatch the capabilities of clusters of super computers around the world. These QCs—smaller than a pinhead—calculate data in a three-dimensional level instead of our current linear programs. These QCs threaten to destroy our current cryptograph systems because of the very nature of their code-breaking capabilities, operating in seconds what formerly took computers months and years to process.

QCs, coupled with the capabilities of nanotechnology, will revolutionize our manufacturing capabilities on a worldwide scale. How massive?

Jose Wolfe, editor of Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report, wrote: “Quite simply, the world is about to be rebuilt from the atom up. That means tens of trillions of dollars to be spent on everything: clothing… food… cars… medicine… the devices we use to communicate and recreate … the quality of the air we breathe … and the water we drink, are all about to undergo profound and fundamental change. As a result, so will the socio and economic structure of the world. Nanotechnology will shake up just about every business on the planet.”

Imagine the challenges law enforcement will face when this technology falls into the hands of sophisticated criminals. Due in part to this concern, staff members from several federal agencies began to meet regularly about their plans and programs in nanoscale science and technology. This blossomed into the Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology (IWGN) in 1998, and in 1999, this group completed its first draft of an initiative that ultimately resulted in it becoming a  ‘federal initiative’ called the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Not surprising, the government did what it does best—disbanded the IWGN and created yet another group called the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee. This group is responsible for riding herd on all of the federal government’s nanoscale research and development programs.

It is almost as enlightening to see who is assigned to one of these federal committees, as it is to see what they actually do. Which federal agencies are represented by NSET? Here is the alphabet-soup list:

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

·         Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

·         Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS/DOC)

·         Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

·         National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA/USDA)

·         Department of Defense (DOD)

·         Department of Education (DOEd)

·         Department of Energy(DOE)

·         Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

·         Department of Justice (DOJ)

·         Department of Labor (DOL)

·         Department of State (DOS)

·         Department of Transportation (DOT)

·         Department of  Treasury (DOTreas)

·         Department of National Intelligence (DNI)\

·         Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

·         Food and Drug Administration (FDA/DHHS)

·         Forest Service (FS/USDA)

·         U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)

·         National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

·         National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH/CDC/DHHS)

·         National Institute of Health (NIH/DHHS)

·         National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST/DOC)

·         National Science Foundation (NSF)

·         Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

·         U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

·         U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

If this is a subcommittee, can you imagine what a full committee must look like?

At least the federal government seems to recognize the importance that nanotechnology will have on this country—if not the rest of the world. However, a federal response to this issue may not be enough. A non-profit group—Center For Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN)—urges an international response, citing the risks if such an effort are not undertaken:

“ … MNT (molecular nanotechnology manufacturing systems) could spark an unstable arms race between nations, and could be very useful to terrorists. The dangers of an MNT-based arms race will require more study. But one thing that can probably reduce the dangers is international development of defensive technology, to be placed at the service of any nation that is threatened ..."

Who should be a part of this international response? That is what governments and industry leaders are beginning to try to hash out. As CRN and other groups warn, however, time is running out. The longer an international response is delayed, the greater the risk grows.

Predicting Future Crimes

(I am a guest blogger on The Graveyard Shift today. Here is the beginning of the article Predicting Future Crimes. Click on the link below to join us for a walk into the future. The CIA believes it is possible. Do you?)

Predicting Future Crimes

An unnerving movie, Minority Report, came out a few years ago where crime is virtually eliminated in the year 2054. Cops acted on data from precogs, three mutated humans who can peer into the future. Using this futuristic prediction, an elite law enforcement unit tracked down these criminals. The crooks were identified, apprehended, tried and convicted before the crime was ever committed. Everything changes when these precogs turned their attention toward Tom Cruise’s character, John Anderton, leader of the Precrimes police unit. The police unit commander must flee for his life.

Unbelievable?


Take another look. Public attention went spiral a few weeks ago when they learned Google Ventures-the internet giant’s investment arm-teamed up with a CIA-backed investment company to pump money into a little-heard-of company called Recorded Future (RF). What caught everyone’s attention is this new company’s stated goal: monitor the web in real time and use this information to predict the future.


....Continue on The Graveyard Shift

Embedded Law Enforcement Professionals in Iraq

Part II

Hunting Down Terrorist Bombers

Retired FBI Agent Greg Snider has a spent the last year and half hunting for one of the most dangerous predators on earth—men who use bombs to kill others. Greg, embedded with our military units in Iraq, sifted through the debris of the latest bombing sites, searching for elusive clues. He and his teammates searched for evidence that might lead military and law enforcement to identify these bomb makers and track the manufactures that provided the parts for these deadly weapons.

In this second of three articles, Greg will tell us about his experiences searching for these killers.

MARK:  What was your first assignment, Greg?

GREG:  My first assignment was with the 101^st Airborne north of Baghdad.  This is where I worked with Captain PR.  Thanks to PR’s exceptional work this unit holds the distinction of capturing over 175 targeted individuals in a 12 month period, the most of any unit ever in Iraq.  I arrived at this unit about half way through their tour.  Once I could get a few minutes each day with PR, he began to understand what I brought to the fight.  Together we obtained the first nine U.S. Army generated Iraqi warrants.  By the way, PR only slept about 4 hours every other night.  He is one dedicated man.

Greg, left, with now-Major "Captain PR" Perez-Rivera

MARK: How closely did you work with the military? Where were you housed? Where did you work?

GREG:  I worked directly with military command staff.  The army is a 24/7 operation.  At first I worked seven days a week about 14 hours a day.  I was the only LEP (Law Enforcement Professional) assigned to my unit.  I was assigned to the commander and served at his discretion.  My job was to advise him relative to the rule of law and gain his confidence in the use of physical evidence and its importance in targeting.

All of my time in Iraq was spent in the vicinity of Baghdad.  When I was assigned to a maneuver unit I worked south and north of Baghdad proper. I was housed with soldiers on a small base or a forward operating post.

My final assignment, after being outside the wire, was to the forensic laboratory where our evidence was processed.  My job was to be the liaison between our LEPs in the field and the laboratory where the analysis was conducted.  I worked for another extremely capable soldier, Maj. Kelby Brake.  She is 'smart as a whip' and quickly learned about the labs forensic capabilities, analysis and procedures.  She had no other knowledge of forensics prior to this assignment.  This in-theatre evidence analysis laboratory was eventually named the Joint Expeditionary Forensic Facility (JEFF), or “CSI Baghdad” as we were fondly referred to by others.  Our capabilities were fingerprint, ballistics and tool marks analysis, and DNA. 

This concept of using evidence in war time is unprecedented and will continue from here on out.  A lot of my job there was to triage the evidence, usually by phone before it arrived at our facility or when it came in the door.  What can we do with a particular item that might give us the identity of the perpetrator?  Ballistic analysis of a bullet was problematic in that if an Iraqi police officer or an Iraqi Army person was killed, Iraqi belief is that the body could not be defiled by extracting the bullet and the body was buried within 24 hours.  I spent a lot of time convincing the U.S. Army soldiers, Iraqi police, and Iraqi army personnel to collect the bullet casings from the crime scene.  Casings can be directly linked to one particular firearm, in many cases easier than analyzing the fragments of a bullet.

My assignment with JEFF was on Victory Base just across from Saddam’s Al Faw Palace where he spent much of his time while in power. 

MARK:  How were you alerted to each call? Were you on call? On patrol? Were you armed?

GREG:  As mentioned above I was armed at all times.  On base we had a horn or siren to alert us to incoming rockets or physical attack.  On a daily basis we operated by targeting a particular individual and going out looking for that person.  If there was a specific purpose I would go outside the wire with the soldiers to advise on the collection of evidence.  A routine patrol with no known objective was a 'no go for me.'  They would take me if I want, but I chose to limit my risk taking.

MARK: When you responded to a bombing, how did that work? Did you create a crime scene? Tag and bag evidence? How did this all work?

GREG:  The military DOD units (bomb experts) would usually beat me to the blast site.  They would make sure that all the explosives were made safe (they loved to blow them up).  Another major concern was a secondary blast designed to takeout the first responders.  My job was to make sure that all items that contained physical evidence be photographed, collected, tagged and bagged and sent to the lab for analysis.  I helped train many U.S. soldiers to secure the crime scene and collect evidence.  Later, while working at the lab, I conducted informative tours of the laboratory explaining and demonstrating examples of positive results when evidence was collected properly and protected from contamination. 

MARK: What were you looking for?

GREG:  Anything that might contain physical evidence like fingerprints or DNA.  If it was a small arms attack or a sniper shooting we collected bullets and casings when possible.  If we were capturing someone in a residence we would conduct a search of the entire house.  We would collect documents, computers, propaganda, electronic media, cameras, film, pictures, just about anything that we would in the states.  Anything that might give us a lead as to whom this individual associated with and that might lead us to the next bad guy.  In many cases we found illegal weaponry or bomb-making components.

MARK:  Did you encounter any resistance on these calls? What happened?

2 P.M. sandstorm causing red sky

GREG:  My unit was lucky on the missions I went out on.  We did not encounter any hostile acts other than small arms fire on two occasions.  In both of these instances we were not able to determine who was firing at us.  My guess is that they fired a few rounds at our vehicles and then ran.  There is no way they could take head on the might of our soldiers.

MARK: How closely did you work with civilian personnel, Iraqi military and local law enforcement?

GREG:  While at the JEFF, one of my duties was to conduct tours.  One day a request came in to do a tour for an Iraqi judge.  The major, another LEP, and I conducted that tour. The judge brought an interpreter.  This went over so well that he came back with other judges.  That led to Iraqi generals and Iraqi commanders.  This led to Iraqi police.  Once this got started there were six months where three out of five tours were for Iraqis.  I did not work directly with Iraqi civilians other than the Iraqi interpreters hired by our army.