Terrorism foreseeability: no longer a crystal ball
In the past terrorism has been viewed as an event that could not have been anticipated. This is no longer the case. While terror attacks, in some cases, remain unpredictable due to the man-made nature of the event, there now exists enough available historical data related to actual terrorist attacks to meet a legal requirement for determining a standard of foreseeability. According to Dr. Daniel Kennedy, CPP, a criminal forensic expert, "As criminologists know, the best predictor of future events is past events. The best predictor of terrorist attacks would therefore be past terrorist attacks. As suggested in the landmark legal case of Timberwalk v. Cain, the foreseeability of terrorist attacks is based on five factors: frequency, similarity, recency, proximity and publicity of past attacks. The probability of attack would increase exponentially based on these factors." For example, as much as the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center surprised everyone, it was foreseeable that the Twin Towers were a major terrorist target based on the previous truck bomb attack in 1993. According to Dr. Michael J. Witkowski, CPP, another criminal forensic expert, "An environment prone to terrorism may be determined by either of two types of legal notice: Actual, by real events on property or territory; or constructive, where factors such as proximity of events and general deterioration of environment are reviewed." The availability of notice creates possible legal exposure for companies that have not properly assessed and mitigated their terrorism risk using readily available analysis tools or programs. Decision making tools: environmental risk assessments As corporations seek to lower their operating expense, off-shoring or ‘best shoring’ has become common practice. Exporting operations such as call centers, data centers, business process outsourcing, manufacturing and suppliers to countries such as India or Pakistan have now become commonplace. These remain potential targets for adverse activity when other primary targets are ‘hardened’ and less approachable. In a three year review of terror based attacks in India, there were approximately 3,300 incidents where an attack location could be identified from publically available media reports. In the most current three-month collection of attack data, there were approximately 206 attacks and only 12 occurred in ‘new’ locations, where an attack had not occurred in the previous 3 years. Or, in other words, 94 percent of attacks occurred in areas where there had been known terror events previously. [CLICK HERE TO SEE A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATING THE ABOVE DATA] The relative location of 94 percent of terrorist attacks in Indian cities could be anticipated because of their correlation to previous attack data. Decision makers can now establish a baseline operational footprint of locations vital to the operations such as manufacturing facilities, office, and warehouse space. Additional details such as key supplier locations, along with rail and port (both air and sea) locations can be added to develop a profile of interests vital to the corporation’s operational resiliency. Risk mitigation measures – such as buffer zones - can be implemented for these vital locations or vulnerable locations can be avoided altogether if necessary. This type of research can also be utilized by corporate security or risk management departments as a justification for additional investments in security enhancement measures. Furthermore, a similar methodology can be applied to key supplier locations, with greater security and business continuity emphasis placed on operations in high attack environments. As many official US or Western government facilities, such as consulates, embassies and military bases have been target hardened, special attention should be given to operations in close proximity to these facilities. Additionally, unambiguous representations of the West, such as US branded hotels, banks, and restaurants should be factored into a risk assessment. The above provides a very brief look at the reasons why companies need to take a fresh look at terrorism vulnerability. Apart from the obvious threat to business continuity and employee welfare generated by terrorist activities, failure to foresee such attacks and to take reasonable preventative measures opens up the company to legal action, with subsequent financial and reputational losses. Author: Andrew F. Dailey, CPP, President, GeoCritical, LLC
•Date: 6th June 2008• Region: US/World •Type: Article •Topic: Terrorism |
