According to the G8/2006 Russia Global Forum for Partnerships between States and Businesses to Counter Terrorism: “Just as governments and businesses cooperate to build prosperity, so they should also combine their effort to counter terrorism”.

I, for one, would not trust the security of such a partnership. The security services have enough issues trying to maintain sterility of information. Look at the Snowden example: though not a PPP he was a contractor. Security/vetting etc is an imperfect science. Nonetheless, keeping operations as close as possible - read in-house - seems like the bes5 hope of maintaining the necessary secrecy. 

Thank you for the feedback. About the information sharing issues within PPPs, UNICRI, with  its  2009 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PPPs)FOR THE PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE TARGETS AGAINST TERRORIST ATTACKS:

REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS, actually say: " ...  there should be clear guidelines as to which type of information public authorities can share with the private sector in compliance with data protection regulations. Likewise, minimum standards should be set for the safe and secure retention of such information, ensuring that private sector stakeholders know how to handle the information correctly. Information sharing protocols between private and public entities can help set out the principles of the partnership’s data sharing arrangements, detailing what will be exchanged, by whom, with whom, for what purposes and with what safeguards. A shared understanding of such a protocol’s limits, as well as what it permits, is fundamental". "Public authorities should provide private sector stakeholders with the relevant information and guidance to assist them in countering any identified threat to the infrastructure or facilities they manage. In terms of physical protection, detection and crisis management plans, the public sector should, where relevant, provide guidance to the private sector on the security measures adopted or planned. Similarly, risk assessments carried out internally by the private sector should be shared with relevant public sector security providers. The private sector should also provide public authorities with information on suspicious behaviour and, in return, public authorities should provide feedback to the private sector, thereby enhancing channels of communication and improving security ... ".

I disagree that its non-sense!  It’s not only a good idea, but necessary for public safety and national security of any nation. It’s no different than the coordination we have between intelligence agencies within the United States or intelligence sharing between allied nations. We “vet” all information by classifying it secret, top-secret, unclassified, ect. Aligning the private sector to engage in effective, but controlled counter-terrorism strategies is necessary; along with direction, awareness and the implementation of counter-terrorism and crime prevention policies and procedures. Furthermore, facilitating communication between the public and private sectors in the hotel and hospitality industry is imperative in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. Anywhere that there are regular meetings taking place or large groups of people, such as hotels, concert halls, or stadiums,  senior security personnel at these venues should be throughly trained at the cost of their companies; and it should be required by law. The training should focus on how to recognize suspicious activities is at times provided by public authorities. I would even go as far as offering “ corporate sponsorship” to PPPs who would pay for the costs of free seminars on counter-terrorism to the public. Furthermore, intelligence and police agencies cannot be everywhere all the time and in many cases are not as familiar with particular municipalities as are local police, private security managers, or even managers at a local restaurant. These people , particularly local security managers would no doubt , contribute to the national assessment of risk, threat and vulnerability through coordinated communication efforts with government based intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies.

Now, I am not talking about the use of “contractors,” as Dominic Shadbolt  mentions ( I mean no offense my dear colleague), but structured agreements that provide public service and notification functions. For instance, putting in place mechanisms to facilitate the sharing of “unclassified” and “need-to-know” information to PPPs could protect vulnerable targets and prevent civilian casualties. Case in point, if a Paris-like attack were to be in progress and a government agency, like  the “Referral Centre” at INTERPOL’s General Secretariat in Lyon, France,  knew about the attacks, they could notify key personal and possibly evacuate or subdue the attack in progress. Of course, the strategy design would be guided by federal or state subject matter experts, but the funding and training costs would be paid by the PPP.

For instance, in Portugal, their intelligence service links public entities and private companies together with a framework of training and communication services in order to has effective counter-terrorism coordination. In Holland, Dutch intelligence has a PPP integrated Counter-terrorism Alert System in order to notify public and private entities of a terrorist threat on Dutch soil. In Australia, the Government coordinates with the public sector issuing travel advice and warnings in relation to countries considered unsafe via private sector tour operators and travel agencies. Yet another example is Italy. They have a network of PPPs that coordinate with the Ministry of Defense to notify the public, universities, and other private organizations of pending or in progress terrorist attacks.

It would be a travesty not to inform, train, and advise public companies, private security officers, and employees of the potential hazards, vulnerabilities, and threats that terrorism can inflict. An initiative, if implemented, should focus on protecting any given municipality and its public from terrorist attacks by coordinating  the resources of the local, national police, intelligence agencies, emergency services; national, state, and local authorities, businesses and the private sector security staff.  And finally, the role of the private sector should not be limited to only crisis situations. There should be measures in place to prevent terrorism and enhance overall security should be established in advance and be proactive in terms of preventing and/or deterring terrorist attacks.

And just one more comment: "keeping things in house" is why 911 happened...

As I observed previously, it is certainly an imperfect science. As a foreign intelligence agency it would be far far easier to target a public company rather than a more tightly controlled government unit. Not impossible, but harder.  There is a much more diverse recruiting environment with internal barriers much more difficult to erect and maintain.

The Pearl Harbour remark doesn't seem to be comparative. What else might have happened in our uncertain world if information had been less secure. Snowden is not a shining example of allowing third parties into the mix. The post hoc ergo propter hoc style can cut both ways and is not such a useful objective lens to make these choices through. 

I love a little banter...Fair enough, it is an imperfect science; however, civilian targets are 'soft targets' and as you said, much easier to attack, so why not help the civi's to help themselves. Local, state police, and military cannot be everywhere at once (at least in the U.S.). One doesn't need to go around handing out SKIF badges to undoctrinated or un-vetted individuals. As far as Snowden goes (and others), they are a result of an inherent fault in the U.S. security clearance process. It's broken and as I understand from a colleague of mine, in the process of getting an oil change and new tires.  Hell, last summer my entire Security Clearance renewal packet was hacked by someone in China (along with thousands of others). Finally, on Pearl Harbor, there were eyewitnesses to the in coming aircraft that had the capability to radio ahead to the harbor, but were told by their commander not to broadcast on public airwaves...

Pleasure talking with you. Cheers

He he. I am a mere amateur and undergraduate, albeit an old fart. Still, it is hard enough for the state agencies to ensure security. Until - and I don't think it is truly possible - there is great security within the state then opening the field to the much harder to regulate and monitor private sphere seems like jumping over the issue. The govt needs to get their house in order first. 

Back to my own essay load! Cheerio.

Thanking for your contributions, I'd like just to add that according to Professor Rohan Gunaratna, commenting the terrorist attack affecting the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad : “With international hotels becoming second embassies, hotels alone cannot protect their facilities. No longer can a hotel be protected only by securing its perimeter. To manage their security, hotels must build liaison with law enforcement authorities to protect, intelligence agencies to prevent, and emergency services to manage the crisis after an event”.

- Rohan Gunaratna, “Marriott in Flames: The Attack on the World’s “Most Protected” Hotel”, Insite vol. 1, 7 (2008): 9 -15

Of course, I agree.

The fact that only one state is not enough for an effective response to terrorism. Even in the countries that conduct active anti-terrorist policy (Russia, Israel) terrorist attacks happen.

In European countries, the lack of strong anti-terrorism state bodies. Recent high-profile terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels confirm this. In Europe there is not even a political force, capable to resist to illegal actions of migrants. Therefore, civil society in countering terrorism should play a more active role, for example the actions of civil society in Russia or Israel.