Terrorism and the Methods of Monitoring and Addressing the Threats

Point paper:3

There is 1, one-page point paper due as part of the course. The key parts of the point paper are:

• Background: 1 paragraph


• Issue: Identify the primary in one sentence


• Discussion: Analyze and appraise different ways this may be addressed. This is the main part of the paper;


• Recommendation: Choose a course of action from the discussion as your recommendation.

The point paper should support the development of your research paper. You are writing this as an advisor to a leader in the homeland security arena and are responding to an ongoing situation. Your audience is professionals who work in the field and as such you will not have to explain any basic facts. Your final product is a proposal for a particular course of action. Please use this as an opportunity to develop research on your paper and use my assessment of the point paper in your writing.

The point paper should contain references to the readings, as applicable, and these should be in the text, either by a citation in the sentence or by parenthetical reference after the sentence. This paper is in 12 Arial font with 1-inch margins.

If your score on your first point paper is below 70, you will be required to send your research paper into the Writing Center for feedback before submitting it for this course. The Writing Center takes 48 hours to respond, so you will have to plan accordingly to ensure this is submitted on time.

The point papers support the following learning objectives:

• Explain the components of this particular complex problem;


• Discuss the disciplines of homeland security;


• Write clearly and concisely in response to a specific issue;


• Research and effectively convey ideas in graduate level work, recognizing the structural, procedural and academic inputs required in its preparation.

Attachment “A” Example Point Paper

Current Issues with Data Security

Background: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reported that their servers had been hacked, and “tens of thousands” of Standard Form 86 (SF-86), the 127-page detailed background investigation report used for security clearance adjudication had been compromised. (Navy Times, June 18, 2015). Federal News Radio reported on June 19, 2015 this number may increase to 4 million current and former federal employees. The Washington Post alleged on June 16, 2015 that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was responsible.

Issue: What is the most effective means of ensuring information technology security of personally identifiable information (PII)?

Discussion: The OPM case reflects the intersection a breach of domestic security, foreign policy with the alleged perpetrator and an IT offensive response. The intrusion by a sovereign state into highly personal information represents a negligence in failing to protect, however there is the need to ensure no repetition. The following alternatives are available:

1. Ensure the proper protective measures are in place such that no further breaches may be reasonably possible. The pros are that this is not capable of repetition, the cons are that the PRC is in possession of the information;


2. Engage in diplomatic efforts to return the PII. Pros would be a reassurance to the millions of service members their information is secure. Cons are that it is not possible to be certain that the PII was copied, or that the PRC denies all involvement;


3. Engage in offensive Information activity against the PRC. The pros are that such action would send a message, the cons are that it may result in a counter- retaliatory action.

Recommendation: The PII has been compromised and there is no way to definitively conclude that returning it would resolve the issue. The threat of offensive IT may result in the degradation of a larger strategic working relationship with the PRC. The recommendation is course of action number 1, specifically to identify the route of entry and protect the IT structure while protecting the service members with the indirectly conveyed threat of IT retaliation.