SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Network Models Robert Zimmer Room 6, 25 St James.
Advertisements

Network Models Robert Zimmer Room 6, 25 St James.
Outline LP formulation of minimal cost flow problem
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 3-1 BUSINESS DRIVEN TECHNOLOGY Business Plug-In B3 Supply Chain Management.
Modeling Alabama Tornado Emergency Relief (MATER) Joe Cordell Spencer Timmons Michael Fleischmann.
Proposed Regional Cooperation Framework To be taken forward through the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and related Transnational.
United States Air Force: Air Doctrine – Air and Space Superiority Objective: Comprehend how the United States Air Force is structured in terms of missions.
Maj Javier Reyes (USMC) Maj Aaron Ramert (USMC) LTJG Turgut Kaymal (Turkish Navy) June 04, 2012.
Bay Area Bakery Group Members Kevin Worrell, Asad Khan, Donavan Drewes, Harman Grewal, Sanju Dabi Case study #1.
Attempting Escape: A Network Based Analysis of North Korean Refugees Capt Krysta Anthony LT Kevin Kerno.
Planning under Uncertainty
Maritime Drug Interdiction Through UAV Surveillance Presented by LT Monica Schneider LT Sylvester Campos LT Mike Dickenson.
Lecture 23 (mini-lecture): A Brief Introduction to Network Analysis Parts of the Network Analysis section of this lecture were borrowed from a UC Berkeley.
Transportation in a Supply Chain
Detecting Network Intrusions via Sampling : A Game Theoretic Approach Presented By: Matt Vidal Murali Kodialam T.V. Lakshman July 22, 2003 Bell Labs, Lucent.
Tracking Moving Objects in Anonymized Trajectories Nikolay Vyahhi 1, Spiridon Bakiras 2, Panos Kalnis 3, and Gabriel Ghinita 3 1 St. Petersburg State University.
1 Introduction to Industrial Engineering (II) Z. Max Shen Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research University of California.
Lec 20, Ch.11: Transportation Planning Process (objectives)
Wal-Mart Logistics Network LT John Harrop and LT Aaron Baker.
An Experimental Procedure for Mid Block-Based Traffic Assignment on Sub-area with Detailed Road Network Tao Ye M.A.Sc Candidate University of Toronto MCRI.
Network and Dynamic Segmentation Chapter 16. Introduction A network consists of connected linear features. Dynamic segmentation is a data model that is.
Group 6: Paul Antonios, Tamara Dabbas, Justin Fung, Adib Ghawi, Nazli Guran, Donald McKinnon, Alara Tascioglu Quantitative Capacity Building for Emergency.
Cocaine Trafficking Network within the United States LT Young LT Foster LT Carline.
Shortest Route, Minimal Spanning Tree and Maximal Flow Models
Afghanistan Illegal Drug Trade LT Dan Ryan Capt Steve Felts Capt Bethany Kauffman.
Mediamatics / Knowledge based systems Dynamic vehicle routing using Ant Based Control Ronald Kroon Leon Rothkrantz Delft University of Technology October.
LT Catherine Long LT James Koffi.  Background  Problem/Model Scenario  Network Model  Interdiction  Takeaways/Further Research  Summary/Conclusions.
ENGM 732 Network Flow Programming Network Flow Models.
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis:
San Quentin Prison Break LT Matt Mooshegian Capt Bryan Jadro.
Section 2.9 Maximum Flow Problems Minimum Cost Network Flows Shortest Path Problems.
PRESENTATION TO INDIANA UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Indiana University Kelly School of Business.
 LCDR Hui Lee  LCDR Ashwin Anupdev  03 Nov 2011.
California Department of Transportation Transportation Management Systems (TMS) and their role in addressing congestion Discussion Materials Lake Arrowhead.
2014 GSCMI Case Competition Team MECE Presentation Yejin Lee| Bumsun Ryu Saya Lee| Ryan Seongjin Shin.
Maximization of Network Survivability against Intelligent and Malicious Attacks (Cont’d) Presented by Erion Lin.
Network Survivability Against Region Failure Signal Processing, Communications and Computing (ICSPCC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on Ran Li, Xiaoliang.
Previous Slide TRADOC DCSINT Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC DCSINT.
Network Optimization Problems
Welcome to MM305 Unit 6 Seminar Larry Musolino
Self-Similarity of Complex Networks Maksim Kitsak Advisor: H. Eugene Stanley Collaborators: Shlomo Havlin Gerald Paul Zhenhua Wu Yiping Chen Guanliang.
Kramer’s (a.k.a Cramer’s) Rule Component j of x = A -1 b is Form B j by replacing column j of A with b.
05/2007ORNL Presentation Distributed Denial of Service Games by Chinar Dingankar, Student Dr. R. R. Brooks, Associate Professor Holcombe Department of.
Robustness of complex networks with the local protection strategy against cascading failures Jianwei Wang Adviser: Frank,Yeong-Sung Lin Present by Wayne.
1 Network Models Transportation Problem (TP) Distributing any commodity from any group of supply centers, called sources, to any group of receiving.
1 - CS7701 – Fall 2004 Review of: Detecting Network Intrusions via Sampling: A Game Theoretic Approach Paper by: – Murali Kodialam (Bell Labs) – T.V. Lakshman.
Optimizing Pheromone Modification for Dynamic Ant Algorithms Ryan Ward TJHSST Computer Systems Lab 2006/2007 Testing To test the relative effectiveness.
Network Optimization Network optimization models: Special cases of linear programming models Important to identify problems that can be modeled as networks.
Retaking Vierville ASL Scenario S1 Allies: Ireland94 Germans:Major E Feb 27 – Mar
© 2009 Ilya O. Ryzhov 1 © 2008 Warren B. Powell 1. Optimal Learning On A Graph INFORMS Annual Meeting October 11, 2009 Ilya O. Ryzhov Warren Powell Princeton.
1 Geography and road network vulnerability Erik Jenelius Div. of Transport and Location Analysis Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm.
1 Importance and Exposure in Road Network Vulnerability Analysis: A Case Study for Northern Sweden Erik Jenelius Transport and Location Analysis Dept.
Chapter 5: Transportation, Assignment and Network Models © 2007 Pearson Education.
Urban Traffic Simulated From A Dual Perspective Hu Mao-Bin University of Science and Technology of China Hefei, P.R. China
Mark M Hood Jr Geography C188: University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements Source – Cal Atlas, SF GIS, DataSF,Google and Yahoo (for locations of.
Network Partition –Finding modules of the network. Graph Clustering –Partition graphs according to the connectivity. –Nodes within a cluster is highly.
Mapping of Traffic Conditions at Downtown Thessaloniki with the Help of GPS Technology P. D. Savvaidis and K. Lakakis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Introduction to Multiple-multicast Routing Chu-Fu Wang.
Intermodal Logistics Operation In Ford Otosan, Turkey Recai IŞIKTAŞ Logistics Manager.
Mexico’s Drug Cartels. Mexico’s Relationship with the US ► Main foreign supplier of marijuana ► Major supplier of methamphetamine ► Supplies a large share.
Mexico’s Drug Cartels.
ETSI WG SatEC (Satellite Emergency Communications) Special Task Force STF472: Reference scenarios for Emergency satellite-assisted Telecommunication.
Transportation, Assignment and Network Models
Does Drug Enforcement Raise Price?
Network Models Robert Zimmer Room 6, 25 St James.
Chapter 6 Network Flow Models.
ETSI WG SatEC (Satellite Emergency Communications) Emergency Satellite-Assisted Telecommunication Services in major disasters Haitham Cruickshank - Special.
ETSI WG SatEC (Satellite Emergency Communications) Special Task Force STF 472: Reference Scenarios for Emergency Satellite-assisted Telecommunication.
13 June 2013 Dave Risius Chris Wood
Kramer’s (a.k.a Cramer’s) Rule
Presentation transcript:

SAN FRANCISCO DRUG INTERDICTION SIGACT Analysis and Network Interdiction By: Adam Haupt and Austin Wang

AGENDA INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND SITUATION (ENEMY & FRIENDLY) NETWORK MISSION KEY TASKS NETWORK DESCRIPTION SCENARIO 1.1: SHORTEST PATH INTERDICTION SCENARIO 1.2: MODIFIED SHORTEST PATH INTERDICTION SCENARIO 2: MAX FLOW INTERDICTION CONCLUSIONS FURTHER STUDY SOURCES

INTRODUCTION This case study was inspired by the desire to mate Significant Action Recordings (SIGACTS), with Counter Insurgency Strategies and local Bay Area drug networks. Data was collected from one week of drug related SIGACT reports accumulated in the Bay Area Region on CrimeMapping.com. The data consisted of over 170 drug incidents in the cities of San Francisco, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Tracy, Alameda, Modesto and Stockton.

BACKGROUND Background: San Francisco has been reported to have the highest percentage of drug use in the country at 13% where the national average for a metropolitan area is 8.1%. Trends have shown an increase in the use of Cocaine and Marijuana over the last few years. San Francisco has decriminalized Marijuana and has put increased efforts on decreasing heroin, methamphetamines and cocaine.

ENEMY SITUATION Drug Cartels in Mexico have set up an elaborate smuggling Network to ship drugs through California to their destinations in the Bay Area. Drugs first start in Mexico and are transported by land or sea to the Bay area. Once in the Bay area local Traffickers move the drugs in and out of their respective metropolitan areas by land and sea through unique smuggling routes. Within a city distributers get the drug shipments from the traffickers and then distribute it to there Street Dealers who sell it to the local population.

FRIENDLY SITUATION San Francisco, in an effort to stop an reported large shipment of drugs from Mexico, has created a Bay Area Police Task Force consisting of Police from Hayward, Alameda, Berkeley, Richmond, Tracy, Stockton and Modesto. This Task Force has the ability to consolidate an undetermined number of Drug Interdiction Teams that specialize in targeting and catching drug shipments and exchanges.

MISSION The Bay Area Task Force will Disrupt or Destroy drug traffickers’ ability to put drugs in the hands of its local population.

KEY TASKS Analyze Drug Network in terms of Shortest Path interdiction and Max-Flow interdiction. Determine number of Interdiction Teams necessary to have varying optimal effects on the drug network. Create Strategies against drug traffickers based off of analysis of results.

Network Description Nodes=General Location of Drug Traffickers (Land Transporters, Sea Transporters, Air Transporters, Distributers, Street Dealers) Arcs=Unique smuggling paths between each node in accordance with Arc Rules. Initial Network (170 Nodes, 1200 Arcs) Modified Network (100 Nodes, 730 Arcs)

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Drug Network (Bay Area)

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Drug Network (San Francisco)

Scenario 1.1: Introduction Standard Shortest Path Interdiction Situation: – One large shipment has been reported to be ready to leave Mexico by land or Sea. – All Bay Area smuggling routes are available for interdiction teams. – Drug Smugglers have near perfect intelligence on location of Police Interdiction Teams – Drug Smugglers will choose the fastest route to get drugs into the hands of San Franciscan population. Mission: – Bay Area Police Force will pool resources and choose optimal interdiction plan that will maximize the Smugglers’ travel time and if possible completely cut off all drugs moving to the city. Goal of Experiment: – Gain understanding of optimal interdiction strategy and extrapolate into possible Drug Interdiction Doctrine. Network Considerations: – Cost in this network are Hours of Transit.

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: No Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: No Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 1 Interdiction Team (Bay Area) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 1 Interdiction Team (San Francisco) 14.4 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 2 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) 15.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 2 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) 15.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 3 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) 15.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 3 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) 15.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 4 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 4 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 5 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 5 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 6 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 6 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 7 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 7 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 8 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 8 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 9 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 9 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 10 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) 20.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 10 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) 20.2 Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 11 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 11 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) Hours

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node and Arc Air Transport Node and Arc Distributer Node MEXICO Modesto Oakland Ocean Shipment Land Shipment Optimal Smuggling Route: 12 Interdiction Teams (Bay Area) No Route

Land Transport Node and Arc Sea Transport Node Street Dealer Node and Arc (**60 Nodes) Distributer Node Drugs in SF Optimal Smuggling Route: 12 Interdiction Teams (San Francisco) No Route

Scenario 1.1: Discussion Standard Shortest Path Interdiction Findings: – In all cases shipments from Mexico come from land. – Initial success is derived from cutting Land Transporters in near cities off from SF. – The airport is used only after and SF Land Transport nodes are cut from their Distributers. – Transit increases quickly when Sea Transit has to be used. – At 12 Interdiction Teams the Police pull all external teams and flood SF’s internal network Recommendations: – First cutoff land routes and force smugglers to use water routes if not enough teams to support attacking all internal networks. (Bridges/Highways) – Do not utilize limited resources on Street Dealers. Network Destroyed

Scenario 1.2: Introduction Modified Shortest Path Interdiction Situation: – One large shipment has been reported to be ready to leave Mexico by land or Sea. – ***All but one of the Bay Area smuggling routes are available for interdiction teams. One SF Land Transporter to one SF Distributer is unknown to police and interdiction teams can not get the necessary intelligence to interdict. – Drug Smugglers have near perfect intelligence on location of Police Interdiction Teams – Drug Smugglers will choose the fastest route to get drugs into the hands of San Franciscan population. Mission: – Bay Area Police Force will pool resources and choose optimal interdiction plan that will maximize the Smugglers’ travel time and if possible completely cut off all drugs moving to the city. Goal of Experiment: – Gain understanding of optimal interdiction strategy and extrapolate into possible Drug Interdiction Doctrine. Network Considerations: – Cost in this network are Hours of Transit.

Scenario 1.2: Results Modified Shortest Path Interdiction Network Destroyed

Scenario 1.2: Discussion Modified Shortest Path Interdiction Findings: – In all cases shipments from Mexico come from land. – Initial success is derived from cutting Land Transporters in near cities off from SF. – Airport Routes were not cut until 19 Interdiction Teams were Available. – Sea Transporters were not used until 25 and 26 Interdiction Teams were available. – Once 30 teams become available Police attack Sea Transporter to Distributer networks and then eliminate all Arcs that flow into Land Transporter Nodes Recommendations: – First cutoff land routes and force smugglers to use water routes. (Bridges/Highways) – All teams must be focused on Arcs originating outside of city. Do not turn attacks inwards until 30 teams become available. – Do not utilize limited resources on Street Dealers.

Scenario 2: Max Flow with Interdiction Situation: – 800KG Heroin is on the way from Mexico to San Francisco – Drug Smugglers attempt to find the best path to avoid interdictions and to transport as much heroin as possible Mission: – Bay Area Police Force will pool resources and choose optimal interdiction plan that will minimize the drugs flow. Goal of Experiments: – Effective attack: when an arc is attacked, the flow on that arc is gone – What if an attack is weak and not very effective? – Assume a weak attack can block only half flow on an arc Network Consideration: – Arcs in each different level basically have different capacities

Flows Capacity LevelStarting nodeEnding nodeCapacity (Kg) 1Mexico IntLand or IntSea IntLand or IntSea Transport Centers100 3 Transport Center Transport Center or Distributer 70 4Distributer Distributer or Transport Center 50 5SF DistributerSeller15 6SellerDruginSF15

Effective Attack

Difference between Weak Attack and Effective Attack

Weak Attack 12 interdictions attack all SF Distributers 8 interdictions Attack SF59seaT, SF35seaT 13 interdictions Attack SF9landT 11 interdictions Attack SF9landT

Scenario 2: Discussion Modified Max Flow Interdiction Findings: – Max Flow without interdictions is 740KG – Effective Attack: need 12 interdiction teams to cut off the total flows – Weak Attack: 12 interdiction teams can reduce Max Flow to half (370KG) – Weak Attack: need 71 interdiction teams to cut the total flows off – Further attack need to be implemented outside SF Discussions: – Attack effectiveness could be more complex or nonlinear – Weak Attack case helps to approach realistic situation

CONCLUSION Weaknesses in intelligence will vastly increase the resource requirements. Land Based Drug Smuggling is likely to be used. Controlling Land Routes is essential to forcing Smugglers to use more costly means. Interdiction at the Street Dealer level is a sub- optimal use of resources.

FURTHER STUDY Create more realistic Network. Use real police intelligence to understand true Drug Network components. Change cost to probability of detection. Research true network capacities and introduce more realistic Max Flow problem. Broaden topic to use military SIGACT reports to create a network and interdiction strategies.

SOURCES ancisco ancisco Article “S.F. area is No. 1 for regular drug use” – Donna Leinwand – USA Today