Grants Bring 911 Consolidation One Step Closer to Reality

The new center will consolidate a current county 911 center with the dispatch desks of a county sheriff’s office and two police departments.

William R. Toler, Richmond County Daily Journal | August 6, 2015

A new call center will become a reality. Shutterstock

(TNS) - A consolidated 911 center in Richmond County is one step closer to becoming a reality.

County Manager Rick Sago announced Tuesday night that the county was awarded a $6.3 million grant to build the center.

Richmond — one of three counties awarded — received the lion’s share of the $9.9 million available this year from the N.C. 911 Board. Graham and Hyde counties also received grants.

The funding for the grants comes from the 911 surcharge assessed on wireless phones, said Richmond County Director of Emergency Management Donna Wright.

The new center will consolidate the current Richmond County 911 center with the dispatch desks of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office and Rockingham and Hamlet police departments.

“I think it’s very important to get all the emergency services communications in one place,” said Hamlet Mayor Bill Bayless, who is also deputy chief of the East Rockingham Volunteer Fire Department. “I believe it’s going to be a benefit to everyone in the county.”

While trying to get the Hamlet City Council on board with the idea in February, Wright said there were two primary reasons for the consolidation.

“It’s going to service all our citizens better,” she said, adding the merger would eliminate the need to transfer calls unnecessarily.

Wright, who started her career as a telecommunicator on the night shift at the Hamlet Police Department, said about seven seconds are lost transferring 911 calls to designated agencies.

She said consolidation would also increase the safety of first responders by allowing better information-sharing with the use of new technology.

In a February memo, Rockingham City Manager Monty Crump said the streamlining “will save taxpayers money and increase efficiency.”

He said the city, county and sheriff’s office currently have separate sets of dispatchers providing emergency communications all within about a quarter-mile from each other.

“Consolidation would merge all of this into one agency to provide services to all participating agencies,” he said.

As part of an interlocal agreement, the county will not charge the city any fees for taking over dispatch duties and efforts will be made to hire displaced dispatchers at the new center.

Included in the agreement is the creation of a law enforcement advisory committee.

The committee would consist of representatives from the Hamlet and Rockingham police departments, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office, the 911 center and Wright, and would be responsible for “making recommendations in the the development of dispatch protocols, procedures, polices and systems related to service delivery for law enforcement.”

Wright said that the new center should be operational within the next three years.

“As for location,” she added, “we are looking at our options along with a location at the airport.”

All surrounding counties — Scotland, Anson, Montgomery, Stanly, Hoke and Moore — have fully consolidated dispatch centers. Scotland County’s center went operational in February.

Wright said the Richmond County Board of Commissioners will have to approve the grant once the paperwork is received from the state.


———

©2015 the Richmond County Daily Journal (Rockingham, N.C.)

Visit the Richmond County Daily Journal (Rockingham, N.C.) at www.yourdailyjournal.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/next-gen-911/63M-awarded-for-911-merger.html

Israel places Jewish extremists in administrative detention for six months without charge

Published 10 August 2015

Israel has expanded its crackdown on Jewish terrorists and their supporters, placing two high-profile extremists in administrative detention for six months – that is, jailing them for six months without charge — and arrested more than a dozen other extremists in West Bank settlement. About two dozen extremists from different West Bank settlements were taken into police stations and their finger prints, DNA, and other identifying markers collected before they were released. They are suspected of being part of the extremist movement, and if they take part in violent actions against Palestinians it would easier for forensic experts to determine whether or not they were on the scene. Following the 31 July arson attack by extremist settlers on a Palestinian family in the village of Duma – the extremists blocked the doors to the house from the outside to make sure the family of four would burn alive – the Israeli government voted to designate Jewish settlers’ violence as terrorism, allowing the security services and police to take steps to combat the extremists which would otherwise not be permitted.

Israel has expanded its crackdown on Jewish terrorists and their supporters, placing two high-profile extremists in administrative detention for six months – that is, jailing them for six months without charge — and arrested more than a dozen other extremists in West Bank settlement.

The Israeli police and courts had typically treated acts of terrorism and violence perpetrated by Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories against Palestinians without the urgency and determination directed at Palestinian terrorism, but over the past three or four years there has been a noticeable escalation in violence by extremist Jewish settlers. These violent extremists now destroy not only Palestinian property, but they have begun to take action aiming to kill Palestinians in the Palestinian territories, destroy Mosques and churches in the territories and inside Israel, attack Israeli Arabs, and threaten Israeli Jews who do not agree with them.

Given a patina of religious legitimacy by a few extremist and racist rabbis, some of those behind the new wave of violent settlers extremism openly call for the dismantling of Israeli democratic institutions and replacing them with a Taliban-like (Jewish) religious state in which Muslims and Christians would have no rights (that is, if they are even allowed to stay in the new state).

The movement, calling itself “The Revolt,” wants to establish a Jewish kingdom based on the laws of the Torah. Non-Jews are to be expelled, the Third Temple is to be built, and religious observance is to be enforced, initially in public spaces.

“The starting point of the Revolt is that the State of Israel has no right to exist, and therefore we are not bound by the rules of the game,” anonymous authors of The Revolt’s manifesto of sedition wrote. Portions of the manifesto were posted online (see “Israel mulls designating Jewish extremists as ‘terrorists’,” HSNW, 3 August 2015).

“They want the Messiah to come, to bring back the Kingdom of Israel, like in the days of King David, to rebuild the temple and to drive out all idolaters, meaning Muslims and Christians,” said Lior Akerman, a former Shin Bet officer, told the New York Times.

The Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, has been warning for a few years that treating the intensifying settlers’ violence with kids’ gloves would only lead to more – and more dangerous – violence, but politicians vying for the vote of the West Bank settlers and their supporters in Israel have blocked efforts to designate settlers’ violence against Palestinians and Israeli Arabs as terrorism, and without that designation the hands of the security services and the police in taking action against the extremists were tied.

All that changed on 31 July when extremist Jewish settlers threw a Molotov cocktail into the home of a family in the village of Duma in the West Bank. To make sure the family would burn alive, the extremists blocked the doors to the house from the outside, preventing the four family members, who were awakened by the fire, from escaping. An 18-month toddler and his father were killed. The toddler’s 4-year old brother and their mother are in critical condition in the burn unit of an Israeli hospital, fighting for their lives.

The New York Times reports that Israeli authorities described the arson attack on 31 July as an act of “Jewish terrorism,” and that Israel’s security cabinet approved the use of tough measures to tackle an increasing problem. Among the measures approved was administrative detention, which allows suspects to be held for lengthy periods without charge. Administrative detentions have mostly been used against Palestinians suspected of involvement in terrorism, but rarely against Israelis.

Meir Ettinger, grandson of the late U.S.-born racist Rabbi Meir Kahane, and Eviatar Slonim, another Jewish extremist, were on Sunday placed under administrative detention for their suspected involvement in an extremist Jewish organization, Israel’s Defense Ministry said.

Another suspected Jewish extremist, Mordechai Meyer, was placed under six-month administrative detention last week.

Dvir Kariv, a former Shin Bet official, said that sometimes there was no choice but to use administrative detention, for example, “when there is intelligence that proves involvement of this or that person in a terror action, but use of this intelligence in a court will expose the source of the information.”

Administrative detention, however, “in this context is a Band-Aid, not an antibiotic,” Kariv told Israel Radio on Sunday. He called for harsher sentencing by the courts, and deeper engagement of educators and social welfare services.

About two dozen extremists from different West Bank settlements were taken into police stations and their finger prints, DNA, and other identifying markers collected before they were released. They are suspected of being part of the extremist movement, and if they take part in violent actions against Palestinians it would easier for forensic experts to determine whether or not they were on the scene.

The Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, has accused Ettinger of leading an extremist Jewish movement which encouraged attacks on Palestinian property and Christian holy sites, including an arson attack on 18 June on a church near the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel that marks the site of a New Testament story about the miracle of the loaves and fish.

Four other young Israelis were arrested in connection with the arson attack, but only two are going to stand trial. The other three were released.

The extremist settlers view churches and Mosques – and the presence of Christians and Muslims – in Israel and the West Bank as violating the “purity” of the Holy Land.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150810-israel-places-jewish-extremists-in-administrative-detention-for-six-months-without-charge?page=0,1

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150810-israel-places-jewish-extremists-in-administrative-detention-for-six-months-without-charge?page=0,1More Sharing ServicesShare on linke

Bill requiring Internet companies to report “terrorist activity” opposed by digital rights groups

Published 10 August 2015

A coalition of digital rights groups and trade associations last week released a joint letter opposing a proposal in the Senate to require U.S. tech firms to police the speech of their users and to report any signs of apparent “terrorist activity” to law enforcement. The letter says that this sweeping mandate covers an undefined category of activities and communications and would likely lead to significant over-reporting by communication service providers. The letter urged senators to remove the “terrorist activity” reporting requirements from the Intelligence Authorization Act (S. 1705).

A coalition of digital rights groups and trade associations last week released a joint letter opposing a proposal in the Senate to require U.S. tech firms to police the speech of their users and to report any signs of apparent “terrorist activity” to law enforcement. The Center for Democracy &Technology (CDT), one of the signatories, says that this sweeping mandate covers an undefined category of activities and communications and would likely lead to significant over-reporting by communication service providers. The letter urged senators to remove the “terrorist activity” reporting requirements from the Intelligence Authorization Act (S. 1705).

The Intelligence Authorization Act was about to pass the Senate by unanimous consent until Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) put a hold on the bill last week, urging senators to consider the implications of an Internet reporting requirement for all U.S.-based tech companies. The tech groups which signed the letter argue that the reporting provision, which was added to the Act during closed proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, would put social media platforms, telecom providers, cloud services, and Web sites on the hook for providing government authorities with their users’ personal information and communications content, without the government having to articulate specific suspicions regarding the individual users involved.

“Turning Internet companies into informants for the government flies in the face of individuals’ fundamental right to privacy,” said Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy &Technology. “People who know their online service providers are required to turn over a broad category of communications and ‘activity’ to the government will face a serious chilling effect on their willingness to access information and speak their minds online.”

The joint letter emphasizes that this provision is not only damaging for users’ free speech and privacy; it is also unnecessary. Internet providers are already permitted to report to law enforcement evidence of crimes that they discover on their networks, and to share the content of relevant communications during an emergency. Providers also support lawful criminal investigations and comply with properly targeted requests for information.

“Forcing tech companies to serve as investigators and intelligence analysts on behalf of the government is an egregious overstep of what should be considered necessary and acceptable scrutiny in a free, connected society,” Llansó concluded.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150810-bill-requiring-internet-companies-to-report-terrorist-activity-opposed-by-digital-rights-groups

Unlocking Interoperability: What It Means for Next-Generation Public Safety Communications

Many agencies buy a new radio system only to get an unpleasant and costly surprise soon after implementation.

Robert Stack | August 6, 2015

Shutterstock

With nearly 28 years of experience with the Lexington Division of Police and 15 months as director of Lexington Enhanced 911, I’ve seen the realities of next-generation public safety communications — what it can be and what it should be. 

You can’t go 60 seconds in a conversation about public safety communications without someone using the word “interoperability.” Plus, the number of interpretations — and misinterpretations — of what it actually means is directly related to the number of participants in the conversation. That’s because “interoperability” means something different to the industry’s many facets.

One commonality, however, is that regardless of how the term is used, interoperability is vital to realizing the true potential of next-generation public safety communications and how we can better protect lives. But in order to realize that potential, everyone who has even a cursory stake in public safety operations should be aware of the breadth and impact of interoperability in each of its expressions, chief among them network and component considerations. 

Network Interoperability

Disasters, man-made or natural, can happen to any city, county or municipality, regardless of size. In public safety, we throw around “interoperability” as if it were a panacea to solve all issues during a disaster or large event. 

However, at the disaster exercises I’ve assessed, the topic of interoperability often appears prominently in after-action reports, where technicians are observed spending the vast majority of the exercise huddled around an integration device trying to get it to work. When it comes to real-world disasters, the lack of interoperability typically translates into response agencies not being able to communicate across radio systems. 
  
This is why network interoperability is so vital. When jurisdictions can seamlessly connect to neighboring radio systems, first responders can step in and collaborate quickly and efficiently, which can make the difference when lives are on the line. For instance, if a natural disaster rips through a small town, it’s easy to imagine that police, fire and EMS could be simply overwhelmed with the volume of emergency calls and requests. And with the influx of manpower support from nearby jurisdictions, the lack of communication and coordination from conflicting network infrastructures can complicate an already dire situation.

Fortunately agencies across the nation are taking note and have invested a significant amount of funding in temporary integration systems, multiband radios, command posts, emergency operations centers and other solutions to achieve network interoperability. If used properly, these resources are money well spent. 

However, an even better investment would be the deployment of an Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) Gateway, which integrates cities in close proximity of each other. 

A high degree of interoperability can be achieved if Project 25 (P25) radio systems from different manufacturers are linked through an ISSI. What you get is a network of shared systems that allows users to roam freely in the coverage area. Imagine police, fire and other first responders moving throughout an area without the fear or doubt of their ability to connect and communicate. This is possible when several cities or counties with different P25 800 MHz radio systems connect through an ISSI gateway. That’s the future we should strive for. That should be the end goal when purchasing radio systems. 

Component Interoperability
It’s astonishing how many agencies buy a new radio system only to get an unpleasant and costly surprise soon after implementation. This shock comes in several forms, but usually involves functions and features that are proprietary to the system. 

A common example is when a land mobile radio (LMR) vendor’s bid is presented as the best value because it includes a “free” capability, such as encryption or interface capabilities. Here is where the surprise comes in: Since the “free” feature is proprietary to the vendor’s system, agencies are only able to benefit when using this same vendor’s handheld and mobile radios. The proprietary nature locks you into using a single vendor, which limits choice and control. 

I recently met two E911 directors who were stung by this approach, and it opened my eyes to the importance of component interoperability, or the lack thereof, in radio systems. One lamented that his city paid thousands of dollars more for each radio because of proprietary “freebies” included with the radio system that were absolutely necessary for certain routine operations, such as encryption, talk-around and group paging. 

Both directors bemoaned the fact that the initial cost savings of the radio system evaporated when they learned that their handheld and mobile radios could only be purchased from the same vendor — at nearly double the cost of similar radios. The price hike for radio units typically sneaks in during the year after the initial system purchase. 

So how do you avoid this situation? 

Begin with a bid process that requires vendors to disclose all proprietary features. Understand how these features directly or indirectly impact your ability to purchase replacement components, handheld and mobile radios, as well as how the features will interface with legacy radio systems and other agencies’ systems in the region. An important point is to find out if the vendor’s price is contingent upon acceptance of one or more of the proprietary features. 

These simple actions on your part increase your ability to evaluate proposals in an “apples to apples” comparison. Fortunately there are industrywide changes taking place that can help.

Industry standards offer the hope of reshaping the LMR marketplace for the better, but only if cities, counties and states insist upon it. 

The infrastructure behind digital radio systems involves computers that perform multiple functions, switches, combiners and antennas. Industry veterans may remember the days when spare parts for many systems could be purchased from electronics vendors without the need to go through the original system installer. Today that’s not necessarily the case. A vendor can install a complete system that includes core components that can only be purchased from that same vendor. So when a computer performing a key function fails, it’s not as simple as reinstalling software onto another computer—even if it’s completely capable of running the application. Without industry standards for interoperability, customers must buy a replacement computer from the original system vendor. 

Clearly the vendor controls the life of its products, but what happens when the vendor decides that a core component is at its “end of life” and will no longer offer it? For some agencies, the shock comes in a letter from the vendor notifying the agency that their six- to eight-year-old multimillion dollar radio system will be phased out and support will cease on a specified date. Imagine delivering that news to your elected leaders just a few years after installing a state-of-the-art system. That’s when public safety agencies begin shopping for used parts on the Internet to keep their legacy systems in operation as long as possible. 

So what should agencies do? 

A good first step is to ask your vendor which components must be purchased from them and which can be purchased on the open market. When opting for open-market items, it may be necessary to ship a replacement part to a vendor for configuration, and it may help to have the vendor integrate the replacement component into the larger system. But bottom line, you will have the part.

Those who manage radio systems should demand the option of pricing components on the market to get the best value for the agency, and more importantly, the taxpayers. 

When it comes to regulating industries, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that having the federal government weigh in on radio systems, integration and interoperability would yield a positive outcome for all public safety agencies. However, that is exactly what it may take for us to install new radio systems and continue to be able to use the handheld and mobile radios purchased earlier for previous systems. But there’s a better way—interoperability testing.

Interoperability testing is a rigorous examination process where vendors have their products tested and certified to work on the radio infrastructures of competing vendors before going to market. Once on the market, agencies can test radio communications between their existing handheld and mobile radio units from their old system to the new radios on the new network and determine feasibility and functionality. Agencies can also ask a manufacturer to test sample radios on a new system in a lab environment to confirm point-to-point communication and determine which functions will and will not operate properly. 

While this process is demanding, it’s nevertheless the most cost-effective approach. It ensures that every piece of equipment is used to its fullest potential and that there are no issues that hamper emergency response.

Although interoperability testing ensures functionality between systems, many vendors are reluctant to participate. Clearly they would rather you buy everything from them, from the handheld to the dispatch console. However, this backs agencies that have a large quantity of handheld and mobile radios into a corner if they select a radio system from another vendor. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials’ (APCO) P25 standard was meant to alleviate this issue and promote interoperability within the industry.

When a large contract is at stake, manufacturers will express interest in testing their radio units and commit to interoperability, but they rarely follow through. These same manufacturers will be quick to caution that they’re not responsible if their brand fails to perform properly if used on another manufacturer’s infrastructure. Of course, this framework is designed to keep customers locked into a single source for their radios — and to pay the price for it. 

To be fair, manufacturers have the right to proprietary features, and they have the right to only make them available on certain systems, but the core capability and functions essential to public safety should work universally. 

Basic connectivity and communication should be seamless. This is where the government can step in to help. 

Interoperability for the Next Generation
Interoperability is forever evolving. With the next generation of public safety in the works, smartphones, tablets and other commercial devices are delivering a vast amount of information, intelligence and evidence to public safety — more than we ever thought possible. Text-to-911 has rolled out in some jurisdictions, but that’s only the beginning. Within the next decade, live video will be streamed to responders in the field, often in real time, and law enforcement will get a live view inside a facility using Internet protocol (IP)-based video surveillance systems. Soon interoperability will call for public safety agencies’ ability to capture and store the images, video and text in an archival manner required for instant replay and evidentiary purposes.

The meaning of “interoperability” continues to expand. It no longer simply refers to exchanging handheld radios between agencies at an emergency scene. It means requiring radio systems that work together through a gateway, either permanently or on an as-needed basis. It means ensuring that the radio system core comprises components that can be obtained from multiple sources and don’t become obsolete the moment a vendor decides a master site controller will no longer be manufactured or supported. Interoperability also includes the ability for multiple radio brands to work on a manufacturer’s infrastructure, which provides agencies choice in selecting equipment while also demonstrating good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The ability to integrate entirely separate systems is critical to achieving large-area or statewide interoperability. It also ensures jurisdictions have access to public safety communication systems should they lose their master site. 

Regardless of how it is defined, we should demand that our federal government and public safety industry work together for the common goal of interoperability. We can’t afford not to. 


Robert Stack is the director of Lexington Division of Enhanced 911

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/next-gen-911/Unlocking-Interoperability-What-It-Means-for-Next-Generation-Public-Safety-Communications.html