“Terrorists and other malicious actors are unable to effectively operate within or against the homeland.” “Terrorists and other malicious actors are unable to acquire or move dangerous chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive materials or capabilities.” “Critical infrastructure assets, systems, networks, and functions are safeguarded and resilient.”Rating the Objectives Each goal has a number of supporting objectives. The purpose of the second Dialogue is to rank each of the objectives supporting the goals. The set up for the rating is sort of unique; each goal is given an allowable number of points (equal to 10 points for each objective) that may be distributed between those objectives. Each objective has a scale with ratings from -30 to +30 in 10 unit increments. After rating each objective the sum of the ratings awarded must equal the available points. So, for example, on Goal #1 I assigned the following ratings for the five objectives:
Understand the Threat – +20 Stop the Spread of Violent Extremism – -10 Counter their Capabilities – +10 Interdict Threats – +20 Build Community Support – +10There is a separate information page for each action area that provides a little bit of information on the Goals and their Objectives. The information is not extensive, but it does at least provide for a general definition of the objectives. It should help keep everyone on the same sheet of music anyway. Discussion of Ideas Once again the major information exchange process for the Dialogue takes place on the “Discuss” page. To date there are only two ‘ideas’ identified in the CTDS section. Every person has the ability to post an idea that is then open to discussion. The general set up is the same as in Dialogue 1. There is a serious improvement however; you can now formulate your idea or response to an idea off-line in MS Word® and cut/paste your entry into the dialogue. Security Issues Remain The security issues that were identified in the previous dialogue remain. The registration form that must be completed before one is allowed to make ratings or contribute to the discussion is still not protected in transmission. If anyone wants to make their comments to the discussion anonymously (there are people that cannot openly discuss policy issues for legal reasons) needs to realize that if they provide personally identifiable information in the registration process it is attributed to their comments. This is not readily apparent, nor is it fully disclosed.