Small Vessel Security Summit

[GordMay]

Acknowledging that the nation remains too vulnerable to terrorist attack by small planes and recreational boats, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering new requirements to allow authorities to identify operators and passengers in millions of these vehicles.

The National Small Vessel Security Summit held June 19-20, 2007 brought together approximately 300 small vessel maritime stakeholders and top Federal, State and local government officials to:
- Inform small vessel stakeholders on security risks in the U.S. maritime domain.
- Provide a national forum for small vessel stakeholders to discuss and present their ideas on the development of security measures to mitigate gaps in small vessel management and control in the maritime domain.
- Provide a national forum for state and local government officials, as well as private industry members of the small vessel population to discuss transportation concerns regarding security threats and present their ideas.

Goto:
Small Vessel Security Summit Initiates Constructive Dialogue
http://www.imakenews.com/ejkrause/e_article000864979.cfm?x=b11,0,w

[David_Old_Jersey]

Dear Cruisers Forum,

My name is Osama I am thinking of buying a boat for cruising around the US of A...........what forms do I have to complete?



Maritime & Border Security News: Small Vessel Security Summit Initiates Constructive Dialogue

[Pblais]

The messages from the stakeholders offered several consistent themes:

• Security must be improved, but using proven requirements that balance with the risk. As one participant put it, “Security shouldn’t be dumb.”

This one seems pretty reasonable except this is from the Dept. of Homeland Security. I'm trying to think what it does not include.

• Licensing recreational boat operators is impractical; too many boats, too little value; requiring operators and passengers to carry identification similar to airport requirements might be acceptable.

Might be acceptable? "Excuse me sir, we need to see the child's divers license please."

• Automatic Identification System for small boats is also impractical; too expensive, too much data with too little information.

Why am I not convinced this one may be off the table.

• Use the small boat communities as eyes and ears on the water; they know their environment and are most likely to identify unusual activity.

Somehow I think we may have a problem when combined with the first item. Some activity is really dumb.

• The Coast Guard needs to improve its relationship with small vessel operators to gain their assistance and their buy-in to any security regulations enacted.

We have a lot of USCG folks around here active as well as retired with the training center, the regional HQ, and the Atlantic fleet. For the most part the folks are all pretty nice and they do a great job. They have been dumped on pretty bad by the Dept of Homeland Security what with there being so much "dumb security" (see above). I just can't see sticking the USCG with the job of making us like this stuff. I think I would let them buy lunch if it would help. I think you all should too.

If you see anything suspicious that isn't dumb hail the USCG on Ch 16 and switch to 22A where they will ask you to call on a cell phone.

[ssullivan]

Good GOD I wish someone would stand up to these bullies. They had better watch out before they have a revolution on their hands. Me? I'm too lazy. I'll just sail somewhere else once the USA locks up that tight.

[dana-tenacity]

In Auckland the Navy decided to protect their boats by placing two yellow buoys 100 yds off the dock.
Three weeks later this radio transmission was intercepted:

"Osama, we can't get close enough enough to attach these limpet mines, there are two yellow buoys in the way, curse the infidel Kiwis"

[cchesley]

Dana, you point up the challenge here. It is virtually impossible to adequately protect military or even civilian 'sensitive' sites from a determined attacker unless....

You eliminate any and all traffic within almost literally miles of these areas. This is totally incompatible with having a free populace. Frankly, I almost think that the consequences of a ''sucessful'' terrorist attack could be more acceptable than the measures required to prevent one.

This is a hard concept to swallow but the reality given today's perpetrators who would rather die in the attempt than get away. I feel for the authorities' dilemma but our best responce would be to not be too unrealistic when the opponents have success. Instead we're trying to eliminate risk here as well as elsewhere in our society. It simply can't be done.