Department of Homeland Security

[Surgicalcric]

Maybe we should start another thread for the subject of interagency communications.

From my experience centralized disatch is rarely the answer to municipal interagency comms problems. And sharing dispatch responsibilities is another subject unto itself. You would be suprised by the lack of communication when everyone is in the same room.

Having everyone on the same system is a great idea though. When you can just change subgroups and talk to either city or county FD; city or county EMS; city, county, state, or federal LE; or a multitude of other agencies it saves time. In my line of work time is life. And I am all about saving lives.

I hope things are better managed where you are than they have been in other areas.

[Air.177]

I agree with Surgicalcric. I was a police Explorer for a small town northeast of Ft. Worth. On New Year's Eve 2000, they had us come in to the PD to act as runners between City hall and the centralized LE/EMS/FD dispatch in the event of a communications failure. Anyway, despite being in the same room, there was still a severe lack of communication from service to service, and from service to the overall command at city hall. By the end of the night it was so hectic in there with all of the different command structures butting heads, that I retired to the arms room to help one of the officers unload the dozens of colt SMG mags that were not needed and place them back in storage. Just my .02

[Surgicalcric]

Well the thread was getting plenty of traffic until I had to go off on a comms tangent.

[Air.177]

It's alright Cric, I'm with ya

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, its fine. Go right ahead. Watch the opsec.

[Air.177]

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Now every LEO, paramedic, and fire officer has the ability to talk with the local FBI office, FEMA, etc...

Is this a good idea?

It would seem that this would complicate the situation and "clutter" the net. One could argue that Frank the fireman in the thick of things would not necessarily need to communicate with the Feds across town. Dedicate a section of the on scene command element to handle the interagency communications.

[Solid]

Or just regulate access to the higher ranks... That way Chain of Command takes care of things, and there's no need to create another subordinate unit.

Solid

[Surgicalcric]

Not every firefighter has a radio, but all of the fire officers do and so do the engineers as well as both EMS crew members.

It is the responsibility of the first arriving engine company, rescue company, or Bus to initiate Incident Command and thusby ensure proper management of the incident: personnel, assets, subordinate commands. As other officers higher in the CoC arrive the responsibility of Command may continue with the initial IC or it may be turned over to a ranking officer, which is the general rule.

Once the fire officer/firefighter/paramedic initiates command a dispatcher is then dedicated to that incident and Command will be assigned a tactical subgroup (channel) for all radio traffic from then on to be carried on. This keep from congesting the dispatch and med channels with the chatter of command. The IC will be talking on 3 or 4 different subgroups depending on the incident and what agencies are involved.

The purpose of every person having the ability to talk is you never know who will be the IC or area command and for how long that person may be in a command position before relieved. Many will never even use those subgroups, but they are there if the need were to arise.

Edited to add:
The old days where an individual could just key up a radio and make stupid comments or play the stereo in anonymity is long gone. Each time I key my WT or mobile everyone else on that given subgroup can see, on their LCD display, whose radio it is thats been squelched. All the radios have identifiers individual to that user.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Surgicalcric

Edited to add:
The old days where an individual could just key up a radio and make stupid comments or play the stereo in anonymity is long gone. Each time I key my WT or mobile everyone else on that given subgroup can see, on their LCD display, whose radio it is thats been squelched. All the radios have identifiers individual to that user.

Not in Chicago.

TR

[Surgicalcric]

The capability is there on VHF, UHF, 800mHz and 900mHz systems to track transmissions once the PTT is depressed. Infact, if its a trunking system (jumps freqs from one Tx to another) radio recognition is required for the system to function.

Edited to add:The above is only true for system owned and operated radios. If someone hacks into the system ( ie disgruntled employee, radio service tech with a bad sense of humor, etc) the tracking system is generally cloned from another radio and the identifier changed to some alpha numeric code recognized on the system but not one thats issued to personnel.

Hope thats more clear.

[Ockham's Razor]

Ir seems much to do with putting together a group of agencies that basically have to fight each other for funding. Each Agency thinks they are more integral than the other and a sort of institutional mind-set of "the other side just does not get what we do" seems to set in. FBI vs CIA is old news. Personally, I think they have a better chance of patching things up than many of the other domestic Agencies.

INS and BP are woefully inadequate in handling the tasks they are assigned. I think the blame lies half at their own administration (agency level) and half at the funding level. I do not have an inside line, all I can speak of is personal observation, and results published. For example, when a computer system of some sort proves to be inadequate to the task of whatever agency (not specific for OPSEC) why not immediately scrap it, admit an error, instead of keeping it, and dealing with the hassle so that the person who made the decision does not have to admit an error.

This kind of thinking is all too common in the corporate mind-set. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations... (Though GUY's philosophy is still very important on the personal level) There are two agencies that now have to work much closer because of DHS that are fighting over this very issue.

Until the agency administrators start thinking about what is best in the long-run for the Republic over what is on their coffee mug or how they are going to wrestle more money from another agency to their own, we're not going to resolve these gaps.

I happen to think everyone at every agency is incredibly patriotic and they do incredible jobs, they just need to change their struture a bit in order to work with other agencies that all have the same goal, the safest Republic that we can have. Nothing is 100%, though with the men and women in service at that level, I think we can come closer to that number than anyone imagines.

The less fighting there is amongst ourselves, the more fighting we can do against "them". I do not think DHS is the answer, but we do have to start somewhere. If for nothing else, I am happy to see USCG out from under DOT. They get very little credit from the public, but have a crucial role to play in this endeavour. hopefully they get all the funds they need, all agencies keep moving towards cooperation, and in the end we are a stronger unit because of 9/11. It sounds callous to say, but my hope is that 9/11 will strengthen us in the furtherence of this goal. Every agency, political in-fighting aside, is on the same playbook. We just have to figure out how to adapt some square pegs to fit into round holes. We're America, we will find a way.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked Thursday for clarification about which federal agency is ultimately responsible for the analysis of foreign and domestic intelligence on threats to the United States and whether the lines of authority are clear.

Two prominent members of the committee said they have not been able to get a definitive explanation about whether the Homeland Security Department, the Defense Department or the CIA has chief responsibility for integrating and disseminating intelligence information on threats to the country. Sen.
Susan Collins, R-Maine, said administration officials have yet to answer in a "satisfactory manner" two letters sent last year that questioned which agency was responsible for coordinating intelligence.

"I am told that the reason we haven't received an answer to our letters is that DHS, DoD and CIA can't agree on an answer, which implies to me that the lines of authority are not clear and that the answer is still being devised," Collins said during a hearing on Defense's role in homeland security.

Source: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/032504c1.htm

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Was this a good idea? Did it fix anything? Or is it just another layer of bureaucracy?

No.

[Jimbo]

Often it is unclear if we are fighting a common enemy or each other.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Often it is unclear if we are fighting a common enemy or each other.

How could this problem be fixed?