Once you’ve automated your threat detection, it’s easy to implement automated responses via SOAR too. This means that you can automatically resolve a significant number of threats without manual intervention. For slightly more complex threats, a one-click execution strategy can reduce the amount of manual intervention requires. For more comprehensive threats, staff can be alerted to a critical issue in real-time.

An evaluative study carried out in 2001 by the British Home Office investigated the potential for Tasers to ignite CS spray. Seven trials were conducted, in which CS gas containing methyl isobutyl ketone (a solvent in CS sprays used by all of the police forces in the United Kingdom) was sprayed over mannequins wearing street clothing. The Tasers were then fired at the mannequins. In two of the seven trials, "the flames produced were severe and engulfed the top half of the mannequin, including the head". This poses a particular problem for law enforcement, as some police departments approve the use of CS before the use of a Taser.[23]

According to Taser International, Tasers are intended "to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement/correctional officers, innocent citizens, or themselves".[153]

After hearing many witnesses and briefs the report[136] by the Canadian House of Commons, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security makes 17 recommendations as a result the death due to the repetitive tasering of a Polish immigrant at the Vancouver International airport.

Threat detection is an integral element of your security strategy. Without effective detection, threats can become breaches before action can be taken. This can cause irreversible damage to your business and your brand.

Supporters claim that electroshock weapons such as Tasers are more effective than other means including pepper-spray (an eye/breathing inflammatory agent), batons or other conventional ways of inflicting pain, even handguns, at bringing a subject down to the ground with minimum physical exertion.[25]

Between June 2001 and June 2007, there were at least 245 cases of deaths of subjects after having been shocked using Tasers.[130] Of these cases:

On 5 July 2005 Michael Todd, then Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, England, let himself be shot in the back with a Taser, to demonstrate his confidence that Tasers can be used safely. This was captured on video, and the video was released to the BBC on 17 May 2007. He was wearing a shirt and no jacket. When tased, he fell forward onto his chest on the ground, and (he said afterwards) "I couldn't move, it hurt like hell," he said after recovering. "I wouldn't want to do that again."[48][49][50]

Manual threat detection may be useful when there is only a small amount of data to contend with. Even then, however, a slight oversight or error could allow a threat to pass through the system undetected. When this happens, a business can suffer considerable fiscal, practical, and reputation damage.

Once your data has been collected, parsed, and stored by your SIEM system, it can be analyzed. Automating this process means that analysis can take place at the same rate data is created, collected and parsed. This leaves only an imperceptible amount of time between a threat arising and it being identified.

With enhanced security protocols being implementing in a cost-effective and labor-saving way, automating your security protocols can be beneficial for your staff, your users and your business.

Even with a highly advanced team of security specialists who can identify and assess threats, it’s highly unlikely they would be able to keep up with the amount of data being processed. Automated data processing, parsing, and storage works far more quickly than humans can. So even the largest security teams can’t be expected to monitor and detect threats as quickly as data can be processed.

A February 2005 memorandum from the Aberdeen Proving Ground, a United States Army weapons test site, discouraged shocking soldiers with Tasers in training, contrary to Taser International's recommendations. The Army's occupational health sciences director warned that "Seizures and ventricular fibrillation can be induced by the electric current." and that "the practice of using these weapons on U.S. Army military and civilian forces in training is not recommended, given the potential risks."[citation needed]

Automated threat detection is only one part of the puzzle. Once a threat has been detected, action needs to be taken in order to prevent the threat from becoming an actual security breach. Identifying a threat and knowing about it doesn’t matter if you don’t take action to stop it harming your systems, your organization, and your users.

Supporters claim that electroshock guns are a safer alternative to devices such as firearms. Taser International now uses the term, "less lethal" instead of "non-lethal," which does not mean the weapon cannot cause death, but that it is not intended to be fatal, and in most cases is not.[61] Non-lethal weapons are defined as "weapons that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or material, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment."[citation needed]

Although the Taser[137] is a programmable device, the controlling software does not limit: a) the number of the bursts of pulses and the time between bursts while the trigger is held down continuously, or b) the number of times the shock cycles can be repeated. Thus the design does not adequately reduce the likelihood that the victim's heart enters into a deadly ventricular fibrillation.

According to a study presented at the Heart Rhythm Society's 2007 Scientific Sessions, Tasers may present risks to subjects with implanted pacemakers.[138] However, a study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic in 2007 on a single animal determined that a standard five-second Taser X26 application "does not affect the short-term functional integrity of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators.... The long-term effects were not assessed."[29]

Automating your threat detection means that you are less reliant on a manual workforce. While security personnel are essential for the management of complex security breaches, identifying potential threats is a routine and often mundane task. If companies were to hire specialist security operatives to carry out this task, it would be an unnecessary use of their resources.

Using automated tools to identify threats is, therefore, far more cost-effective for organizations and provides results more accurately and more quickly than security personnel can.

Summit County, Ohio Medical Examiner Lisa J. Kohler cited Taser use as a cause of death in three cases, Mark D. McCullaugh, Dennis S. Hyde, and Richard Holcomb. Taser International sued, and on May 2, 2008, visiting judge Ted Schneiderman ordered the Medical Examiner to remove all references to "Taser" in the reports and change the cause of death in McCullaugh's case from "Homicide" to "Undetermined."[155]

Jason Miller, Founder and CEO of BitLyft Cybersecurity, has dedicated his 20-year IT career, including co-founding SaaS pioneer Reviora, to removing cybersecurity barriers for mid-sized enterprises. Establishing BitLyft in 2016, Jason set out to unburden security teams with innovative, approachable, and affordable solutions, a vision which has made BitLyft a respected managed detection and response provider. Outside his cybersecurity pursuits, Jason is an avid tree farmer and outdoor enthusiast, planting nearly 300 trees on his ten-acre plot and finding joy in hiking, and hunting. His diverse passions mirror the balanced blend of expertise, dedication, and joy he brings to BitLyft.

A study published by the American Journal of Cardiology found that California police departments that introduced Tasers experienced significant increases in the numbers of in-custody sudden deaths and firearm deaths in the first full year following deployment. The rates declined to predeployment levels in subsequent years. No significant change in the number of officer injuries was found.[134]

Furthermore, automated threat detection allows threats to be identified as they happen. As SOAR platforms can analyze and identify threats at the same rate that data is processed, there is no time-lapse or lag between the threat becoming apparent and it being identified. This minimizes the harm that a threat can do and ensures it can be dealt with more efficiently.

Although tests on police and military volunteers have shown Tasers to function appropriately on a healthy, calm individual in a relaxed and controlled environment,[11] the real-life target of a Taser is, if not mentally or physically unsound, in a state of high stress and in the midst of a confrontation. According to the UK's Defence Scientific Advisory Council's subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less-lethal Weapons (DoMILL), "The possibility that other factors such as illicit drug intoxication, alcohol abuse, pre-existing heart disease, and cardioactive therapeutic drugs may modify the threshold for generation of cardiac arrhythmias cannot be excluded." In addition, Taser experiments "do not take into account real life use of Tasers by law enforcement agencies, such as repeated or prolonged shocks and the use of restraints".[51][52][53][54][55]

A study conducted by electrical engineer James Ruggieri and published December 2005 in the Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers measured a Taser's output as 39 times more powerful than specified. The study concluded that the discharge is sufficient to trigger ventricular fibrillation, a 50 percent risk according to the IEC 479-1 series of electric safety standards. Ruggieri said that high rise-time pulses breaks down skin tissue, decreasing its resistance and increasing current through the body.[139] Ruggieri showed that when the skin resistance drops lower than the device's region of linear operation, the current dramatically increases.

A later study[140] done by Pierre Savard, Ing., PhD., Ecole Polythechnique de Montreal, et al., for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), reproduced the results of the Ruggieri study and indicated that the threshold of energy needed to induce deadly ventricular fibrillation decreased dramatically with each successive burst of pulses. The threshold for women may be less.[141]

Police officers in at least five US states have filed lawsuits against Taser International claiming they suffered serious injuries after being shocked with the device during training classes.[26]

One issue often raised with the use of the Taser are the effects of metabolic acidosis. This is a temporary condition where the body produces lactic acid within the muscles in the same way as it does during strenuous physical exercise.[21][22]

A security automation platform is capable of analyzing data far more quickly than security personnel are able to so it can pick up on anomalous behavior more quickly too. By automating the analysis of your data, you are only one step away from automating threat detection too. Your security specialists simply need to tell your SOAR system what type of activity to look for and flag up as a potential threat. With these rules in place, the system can be left to conduct analysis and threat detection without the need for manual intervention.

Medical conditions or use of illegal drugs can significantly heighten such risk for subjects in an at-risk category.[6] In some cases however, death occurred after Taser use coupled with the use of force alone, such as positional asphyxiation, with no evidence of underlying medical condition and no use of drugs.[7][8]

Tasers are illegal or subject to legal restrictions on their availability and use in many jurisdictions.[citation needed] According to Taser International, the taser is legal for civilian use without restriction in 34 states in the United States, and legal with some form of restriction in the remaining states in the United States, with the exception of the state of Hawaii, where the Taser is illegal for civilian use.[154]

Furthermore, employing a team that is capable of processing this amount of data and identifying threats would be extremely costly. For even the most profitable businesses, this just isn’t the most efficient solution.

Tasers may also not leave the telltale markings that a conventional beating might. The American Civil Liberties Union has also raised concerns about their use, as has the British human rights organization Resist Cardiac Arrest.

Ready to take your threat response to the next level? Discover how security automation through BitLyft AIR® can streamline your organization's cybersecurity defenses and improve efficiency. Contact us today to schedule a demo.

A study by the Potomac Institute concluded: "Based on the available evidence, and on accepted criteria for defining product risk vs. efficacy, we believe that when stun technology is appropriately applied, it is relatively safe and clearly effective. The only known field data that are available suggest that the odds are, at worst, one in one thousand that a stun device would contribute to (and this does not imply "cause") death. This figure is likely not different than the odds of death when stun devices are not used, but when other multiple force measures are. A more defensible figure is one in one hundred thousand."[135]

On September 30, 2009, the manufacturer Taser International issued a warning and new targeting guidelines to law enforcement agencies to aim shots below the chest center of mass as "avoiding chest shots with ECDs avoids the controversy about whether ECDs do or do not affect the human heart"[35] Calgary Police Service indicated in a news interview that the rationale for the warning was "new medical research that is coming out is showing that the closer probe to heart distances have a likelihood, or a possibility, that they may affect the rhythm of the heart".[36]

Taser safety issues relate to the lethality of the Taser. The TASER device is a less-lethal, not non-lethal, weapon, since the possibility of serious injury or death exists whenever the weapon is deployed.[1] It is a brand of conducted electroshock weapon sold by Axon, formerly TASER International. Axon has identified increased risk in repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon; the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[2]

On Sunday 18 November 2007 in Jacksonville, Florida, Christian Allen, 21, was pulled over by police because his car radio was too loud. After a struggle he and a passenger escaped on foot, an officer gave chase, caught Allen and tasered him at least three times. Allen died later in custody.[75]

A 2012 study published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation found that Tasers can cause "ventricular arrhythmias, sudden cardiac arrest and even death." At least 49 people died in 2018 in the US after being shocked by police with a Taser.[3][4][5]

Instead of relying on people to detect threats, automated threat detection relies on integrated systems to highlight potential threats. Using security information and event management (SIEM) and security orchestration, automation and response (SOAR) platforms, organizations can streamline an approach to threat detection.

The head of the U.S. southern regional office of Amnesty International, Jared Feuer, said that 277 people in the United States have died after being shocked by a Taser between June 2001 and October 2007, which has already been documented. He also said that about 80% of those on whom a Taser was used by U.S. police were unarmed. "Tasers interfere with a basic equation, which is that force must always be proportional to the threat", Feuer said. "They are being used in a situation where a firearm or even a baton would never be justified."[44] A spokesperson for Taser International said that if a person dies from a "tasering" it is instantaneous and not days later.[45] Taser International announced that it is "transmitting over 60 legal demand letters requiring correction of... false and misleading headlines."[46]

An investigation by the Canadian Press and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that one-third of those shot by a Taser by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police received injuries that required medical attention as a result. The news agencies used Freedom of Information requests to obtain the Taser-use forms filled out by RCMP officers from 2002 to 2007.[78]

In 2008 San Francisco cardiologist and electrophysiologist Zian Tseng told the Braidwood Inquiry that a healthy individual could die from a Taser discharge, depending on electrode placement on the chest and pulse timing. He said that the risk of serious injury or death is increased by the number of activations, adrenaline or drugs in the bloodstream, and a susceptible medical history. Tseng said that when he began researching Tasers and spoke of his concerns three years previously Taser International contacted him, asking him to reconsider his media statements and offering funding, which Tseng refused saying he wanted to remain independent.[19]

Medical literature reports that one police officer suffered spine fractures after being shocked by a Taser during a demonstration.[56]

Relying on employees to do this is time-consuming and unnecessarily expensive. In addition, the high rate of threats being detected may give rise to ‘alarm fatigue’, which could result in slow responses to threats or a lack of response altogether.

The Commissioner for Public Complaints made several recommendations regarding the use of Tasers by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) including:[157][158][159]

A 2007 study published in The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology questioned the apparent contradiction created by the claim that the Taser X26 does not stimulate the heart muscle, while clearly causing skeletal muscle contraction and stimulation. They estimated the average current pulse of the X26 at 1 ampere. They concluded that it is primarily proximity (or lack thereof) of the heart to the electrodes that prevents stimulation of the heart, along with the short duration of the pulse, which allows the heart to return to near its baseline state prior to the next pulse, due to the larger time constant for the heart muscle vs skeletal muscles. They estimated a 0.4% chance of heart muscle stimulation among the general population with optimum (or worst case) electrode placement, which would normally resolve itself with the resumption of a normal heart beat.[142]

However, in the United States, a water or oil based pepper spray is more common than CS. This allows for the possibility of a Taser being used after an individual has been subjected to pepper spray without the concern for a fire.[24]

The Guardian newspaper was running a database, The Counted, in 2015, tracking US killings by police and other law enforcement agencies that year. As of 6 November 2015[update], 47 deaths of the 965 killed were classified as taser events.[47]

Police officers in at least five US states have filed lawsuits against Taser International claiming they suffered serious injuries after being shocked with the device during training classes.[26]

While their intended purpose is to avoid the use of lethal force (firearms), 180 deaths were reported to have been associated with Tasers in the US by 2006. By 2019 that figure had increased to over 1,000[38][39] It is unclear in each case whether the Taser was the cause of death, but several legislators in the U.S. have filed bills clamping down on them and requesting more studies on their effects.[40] A study led by William Bozeman of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center of nearly 1,000 persons subjected to Taser use concluded that 99.7% of the subjects had suffered no injuries, or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises, while three persons suffered injuries severe enough to need hospital admission, and two died. Bozeman's study found that "...paired anterior probe impacts potentially capable of producing a transcardiac discharge vector." occurred in 21.9% of all deployments.[41] Multiple studies have since concluded that CEW use directly impacts cardiac and brain function, and can lead to cardiac arrest as well as dangerously elevated heart rate.[42][43]

The United Nations Committee against Torture reports that the use of Tasers can be a form of torture, due to the acute pain they cause, and warns against the possibility of death in some cases.[57] The use of stun belts has been condemned by Amnesty International as torture, not only for the physical pain the devices cause, but also for their heightened abuse potential. Amnesty International has reported several alleged cases of excessive electroshock gun use that possibly amount to torture.[58] They have also raised extensive concerns about the use of other electro-shock devices by American police and in American prisons, as they can be (and according to Amnesty International, sometimes are) used to inflict cruel pain on individuals.[59]

Tasers, like other electric devices, have been found to ignite flammable materials. For this reason Tasers come with express instructions not to use them where flammable liquids or fumes may be present, such as filling stations and methamphetamine labs.

So how you identify threats as quickly as possible? With an insurmountable amount of data being processed, manual threat detection is becoming increasingly difficult. For businesses, relying on manual threat detection highlights two main problems; efficacy and cost.

In 2015, the Washington Post reported that in the 11-month period from January to November 2015, 48 people died in the United States in incidents in which police used Tasers, according to police, court, and autopsy records.[133]

While they are not technically considered lethal, some authorities and non-governmental organizations question both the degree of safety presented by the weapon and the ethical implications of using a weapon that some, such as sections of Amnesty International, allege is inhumane. As a consequence, Amnesty International Canada and other civil liberties organizations have argued that a moratorium should be placed on Taser use until research can determine a way for them to be safely used.[11] In 2012 Amnesty International documented over 500 deaths that occurred after the use of Tasers.[12]

A 2012 study published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation found that Tasers can cause "ventricular arrhythmias, sudden cardiac arrest and even death."[3][13] In 2014, NAACP State Conference President Scot X. Esdaile and the Connecticut NAACP argued that Tasers cause lethal results.[14] Reuters reported that more than 1,000 people shocked with a Taser by police died through the end of 2018 with 153 of those deaths being attributed to or related to the use of Tasers.[15] Approximately 49 people died in 2018 in the US after being shocked by police with a Taser.[4][5] Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Paul Howard Jr. said in 2020 that “under Georgia law, a taser is considered as a deadly weapon.”[16][17][18]

Taser International previously described its devices as "non lethal," but changed and now uses the term "less lethal," which is a term for "intermediate weapons" in the lexicon of law enforcement.[9][10]

The removal process may also be addressed in an Exposure Control Plan in order to increase Taser probe removal safety.[34]

While automated threat detection is a crucial part of your security processes, it works most effectively when it is integrated alongside other automated tools. You can be sure your systems are monitored carefully and that potential threats are identified, quarantined and resolved without delay if you use:

Critics claim that risk-averse police officers resort to using Taser in situations in which they otherwise would have used more conventional, less violent alternatives, such as trying to reason with a cornered suspect.[60]

Of course, you could set up automated threat detection and leave your security team to manually respond to identified threats. However, this is unlikely to work in practice. The considerable amount of data which is analyzed always leads to a high number of threats. Many of these are false positives and can be dismissed, while others are common threats that can easily be removed or remedied.

A Chicago study suggests that use of the Taser can interfere with heart function. A team of scientists and doctors at the Cook County hospitaltrauma center stunned 6 pigs with two 40-second Taser discharges across the chest. Every animal was left with heart rhythm problems and two of the subjects died of cardiac arrest. One of the subjects died three minutes after being shot indicating, according to researcher Bob Walker, that "after the Taser shock ends, there can still be effects that can be evoked and you can still see cardiac effects."[144][145]

In October and November 2007, four individuals died after being tasered in Canada, leading to calls for review of its use. The highest-profile of these cases was that of Robert Dziekański, a non-English speaking man from Poland who died in less than two minutes after being tasered by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) at the Vancouver International Airport, October 14, 2007.[71][72] The tasering was captured on home video and was broadcast nationally.[73] This was followed by three further death-after-tasering incidents in Montreal, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Chilliwack, British Columbia, leading Amnesty International to demand Taser use end in Canada, as it had records of 16 other such deaths in the country.[74]

Taser "recommended officers avoid tasing suspects in the chest area, citing the potential for cardiac arrests, lawsuits and effectiveness of the device". Central Texas Constable Richard McCain, whose deputy used a Taser weapon against an unarmed 72-year-old woman (resulting in a $40,000 lawsuit settlement), describes Taser's directive as "not really practical".[37]

With automated threat detection, the risk of this happening is drastically reduced or eliminated altogether. With robust systems analyzing data and identifying threats, there is no opportunity for human error to result in a missed threat or vulnerability.

On December 12, 2007, in response to the death of Robert Dziekański, Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day requested that the federal Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) prepare recommendations for immediate implementation. The CPC report recommended to "immediately restrict the use of the conducted energy weapon (CEW)" by reclassifying it as an "impact weapon."[76] The commission released its report on 18 June 2008; recommendations include restricting use to experienced officers (5 years or more), providing medical attention to those who have been shocked, and improving previous documentation of specific deployment of the weapon, among other things.[77][78][79]

Taser darts penetrate the skin, and therefore may pose a hazard for transmitting diseases via blood. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements and the bloodborne pathogen protocols should be followed when removing a Taser probe.[20] The removal process may also be addressed in an exposure control plan (ECP) in order to increase Taser probe removal safety.[20]

According to the Star Tribune, by April 2021 there had been 16 known cases, including the killing of Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, when a police officer in the United States fired a pistol at someone but claimed to have intended to use a Taser instead.[146] Other notable incidents included a 2002 shooting in Rochester, Minnesota,[147] the fatal 2009 shooting of Oscar Grant by a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer in Oakland, California, and the deadly 2015 shooting of Eric Harris by a volunteer reserve deputy in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[148] In 2018, an officer coming to assist a policeman being assaulted during a traffic stop shot and wounded the arrestee in Lawrence, Kansas.[149] After discharging her gun, startled, she yelled, "Oh, shit, I shot him."[150] Though that officer was charged, a judge dismissed the charges.[150] In 2019, a scuffle in a jail cell led to another accidental shooting by a backup officer in New Hope, Pennsylvania.[148] The Bucks County, Pennsylvania District Attorney declined to press charges against the officer, saying state law excused the officer's conduct from criminal prosecution because of his "honest but mistaken" belief he was firing his Taser when he shot the wounded prisoner.[151] In both the Kansas and Pennsylvania cases, the officers shouted "Taser" before firing their gun.[151][150][152]

Taser International has stated in a training bulletin that repeated blasts of a taser can "impair breathing and respiration". Also, on Taser's website[25] it is stated that, for a subject in a state described as "excited delirium", repeated or prolonged stuns with the Taser can contribute to "significant and potentially fatal health risks".[26] (The term "excited delirium" is not recognized by the American Medical Association or American Psychological Association.[27] but was recently recognized by the American College of Emergency Physicians). In such a state, physical restraint by the police coupled with the exertion by the subject are considered likely to result in death or more injuries. Critics alleged that electroshock devices can damage delicate electrical equipment such as pacemakers, but tests conducted by the Cleveland Clinic found that Tasers did not interfere with pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.[28][29]

Compliance Strategy Group (John Kiedrowski, Principal Consultant, Michael Petrunik and Ronald-Frans Melchers, Associate Consultants) conducted An Independent Review of the Adoption and Use of Conducted Energy Weapons by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police[160] that was completed in June 2008, but only released under access to information and privacy around September 12, 2008. The report is available from the RCMP under access to information, but is censored (e.g., no recommendations). The report as released by the RCMP may be found on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation website www.cbc.ca. The Report reviews how the RCMP made the decisions to introduce the conducted energy weapons, training, policies and procedures, and accountability. The report is approximately 150 pages and provides an excellent analysis on how a police force adopted the Taser. The authors of the report argued that the police did not do their due diligences, is concerned about training and the issues of accountability. The report also pointed out that the police in Canada have misclassified the Taser as a prohibited weapon whereas under the criminal code it is referred to as a prohibited firearm, and refers to excited delirium as "folk knowledge".