System and method for providing terrorism intelligence indications and warnings

• US 7,644,056 B2
• Filed: 01/05/2007
• Issued: 01/05/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 01/05/2006
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Sundri Kaur Khalsa
• Original Assignee: Sundri Kaur Khalsa
• Inventors: Khalsa, Sundri Kaur
• Primary Examiner(s): Hirl; Joseph P
• Application Number:
  US11/650,914
• Publication Number:
  US 20070198450A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,096 Days
• Field of Search: 706/47, 706/46, 706/14, 707/100
• US Class Current: 706/47
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling

Abstract

The present invention provides a system and method for providing terrorism intelligence indications and warning consisting of multiple tasks that create warning products on a Website and in which the associated computer program maintains a Webpage that tracks and displays each analyst'"'"'s pending tasks based on their assigned responsibilities in the system.

Claims

1. A computer implemented methodology augmented with the Internet to provide a terrorism and warning indicator report comprising:

a. establishing a set of features associated with terrorist acts for a given environment in a given geographic area;

b. establishing a community network, relating each feature to another feature in the set of features and weighting relationships between the features;

c. establishing baseline values related to each feature in the set of features associated with a no threat condition;

d. calculating conditional assessments of concerned pathways through the community network;

e. assembling the conditional assessments into a hierarchy of potential threats;

f. collecting current specific features values, assigning such values to the community network, assessing relationships and establishing revised weightings, assessing the established concerned pathways related to the baseline values, establishing concerned alternative pathways, establishing concerned assessment and assigning such concerned assessment into a hierarchy of potential threats;

g. establishing a warning level based on the hierarchy of potential threats;

h. identifying features of the feature set that are drivers in the concerned assessment;

i. searching the Internet using the features of the set of features and assigning values to each feature as a function of the Internet response;

j. calculating an Internet conditional assessment of concerned features and weighted relationships through the community network using the feature values from the Internet;

k. assembling the Internet conditional assessments into a second hierarchy of potential threats;

l. validating such warning levels using an alternative methodology selecting at least one from the group of Hypothesis Testing, Matrix Logic, Chronological Sorting and Questions that Guide;

m. identifying variance among steps g, k, and l;

n. providing a composite warning level to a decision maker in the form of an indicator report wherein the report cites the composite threat level related to the no threat condition with reasons for the variances of step m;

o. reassessing the set of features for effective coverage of the given environment in a given geographic area related to step a; and

p. using a period of time related to the composite warning level of step n, repeating steps b through n after such period has elapsed;

adjusting such period with each iteration to achieve real time relevance between the composite warning level and the given environmental activities; and

creating a new indicator report based on the iterations.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the feature set is established using key words.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein the terrorism and warnings indicator report is categorized by targets.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein the terrorism and warnings indicator report is categorized by countries.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein the terrorism and warnings indicator report is categorized by terrorist groups.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprising using key questions and answers to assess the established concerned assessment.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprising using evidence logs to assess the established concerned assessment.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising assigning colors to the warning levels.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the colors are assigned based on target intelligence.

10. The method of claim 8 wherein the colors are assigned based on intelligence provided on a country.

11. The method of claim 8 wherein the colors are assigned based on terrorist group intelligence,

12. The method of claim 1 wherein the features comprise terrorist intent, capability and a potential terrorist target'"'"'s vulnerability.

13. The method of claim 2 wherein the computer program creates potential terrorist individual hypothesis matrix Webpages.

14. The method of claim 2 wherein indicator warning level numbers are combined using mathematical probability rules and theories to determine overarching warning level numbers.

15. The method of claim 2 wherein a terrorist group threat warning level is determined by combining the terrorist groups intention warning level an the terrorist group'"'"'s capability warning level.

16. The method of claim 2 wherein terrorist individuals are assigned warning levels based on terrorist position indicator warning levels and by combining the terrorists position priority and threatening activity level.

17. The method of claim 2 wherein a terrorist group threat warning narrative is created by combining all indicator narratives related to a given terrorist group, by combining all indicator narratives related to a given terrorist network, and by combining all the indicator narratives related to a given terrorist individual.

18. The method of claim 2 wherein terrorism intelligence indications and warning methodology is applied to warning failure data and to warning success data to create indicator-based warning failure profiles.