Re: A "physical security" question - "cameras" versus "boots on the ground" - best practices

[Paul Kendall <PKendall () ACCUDATASYSTEMS COM>]

Deterrent values are always questionable at best. Deterrence implies that CCTV or other technologies have some sort of 
preventive value associated with them. The real problem with preventive systems is that they are, at best, selectively 
preventive. That is, they will not deter someone with sufficient motivation and desire, and a disregard for normal 
'deterrent' values.

'Boots on the ground' have some value, but unless you can afford to put enough on the ground to provide a grid coverage 
such as was used in London in the turn of the 20th century (albeit only in upper class neighborhoods who could pay for 
the luxury), the deterrent value is limited to visual contact.

What I see missing from many of the responses to this thread is the 'awareness factor' (kudos to you, Eric Schmidt, for 
bringing it up.) To paraphrase the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, "a [well-trained and aware 
population] being necessary to the welfare of the [campus],...". The human brain can assess situations and make 
decisions faster than the time it takes to send an image, analyze the image based on (most likely) incomplete 
information, and respond. This is not to say the camera input is not important, but the human input can often clarify 
things much faster than interpreting data from an image or images, and can often help in the clarification process en 
route to the scene of the situation.

And finally, while Bruce Schneier is a valuable resource, I have found it best to always take what he says with a grain 
of salt. Don't get me wrong - Bruce is a great guy and very knowledgeable, but I fear he sometimes takes himself too 
seriously and tends to feel like his opinion is the only one that counts. Folks like Bruce (and me, for that matter) 
can provide potentially valuable input, but at the end of the day, your folks on the ground at your location (faculty, 
staff, and even students sometimes) can probably tell you more about what would work best than a million dollars' worth 
of consulting time.


Paul
===================================
Paul L. Kendall, Ph.D., CGEIT, CISM, CISSP, CSSLP
Certified HIPAA Professional (AHA)
Certified HIPAA Security Specialist (AHA)
PCI Qualified Security Assessor
Senior Consultant
Accudata Systems, Inc.
(713) 446-5259



-----Original Message-----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Arthur, 
Matt
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:08 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] A "physical security" question - "cameras" versus "boots on the ground" - best practices

I really question when the assertion is made that cctv acts as a 'deterrent', 'prevents' crime or even 'moves' crime to 
areas without cctv.  Report after report indicates that in cities that have spent tons of dough on cctv systems have 
not shown any significant deterrence, prevention or movement of crime elsewhere.  [I did a quick google search and 
dropped a couple of links below.]  Research has shown that cctv can be effective in certain environments (rooms like a 
museum watching something non-mobile and in parking garages), but we keep seeing Public Safety saying things like cctv 
and blue light phones make people feel safer as justification.  My point in this is that the money spent on these items 
to make people 'feel' safer could/should be used on stuff that actually makes people safer.  I'll also include a blog 
from Bruce Schneier who seems to me to be a real voice of common sense in these matters 
(http://www.schneier.com/essay-225.html).

http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf

Matt Arthur
Washington University in St. Louis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
> [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Ben Woelk
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:30 PM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] A "physical security" question - "cameras" versus "boots on the
> ground" - best practices
>
> I asked our Public Safety office for their take on this question. Here's their response:
>
> On our campus, it's not a matter of either-or, but both. Certain high risk areas require
> cameras as a deterrent; as a resource to mine and cultivate investigative information; and as
> a tool to proactively scan for problems/incidents.
>
> In my opinion, cameras can be a force multiplier if utilized appropriately. Can we monitor
> hundreds of cameras simultaneously--of course not. But having the option/ability to group
> various camera segments together and monitor hot spots is value-added 'patrol' work.
> Personnel are needed to provide uniformed visibility campus-wide and to respond to
> emergencies while a dispatcher monitors certain camera segments when a particular crime
> trend develops on campus. This is only one example of how technology and human
> resources can be deployed to deter and detect crime.
>
> Ben Woelk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
> [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Schmidt, Eric Ward
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:58 PM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] A "physical security" question - "cameras" versus "boots on the
> ground" - best practices
>
> Michael,
>
> An inexpensive but far reaching option for this type of scenario also came from the VA
> Tech incident - staff and faculty awareness training.  The training is called Active Shooter
> Awareness Training and it's analogous to the awareness training we all know for fire - stop,
> drop, and roll.   This awareness training provides staff and faculty various things to
> consider if you're on campus and you think you hear gun shots.
>
>
> Eric Schmidt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 27, 2011, at 12:26, "SCHALIP, MICHAEL" <mschalip () CNM EDU> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks.....
> >
> > Sorry if this is the wrong "group", but - I need some advice.....
> >
> > We're struggling with a debate on physical security measures.  Following the Virginia
> Tech incident - our execs decided that we had to respond with increased security measures.
> At some point - the decision was made that we needed to explore "security cameras".  Next
> thing we knew - there was a contractor engaged, cameras were installed at one campus (we
> have 6 across the metro area!), and now - the questions are finally being asked - "Are we
> doing the right thing...??"
> > Putting in cameras is fine - but then folks are trying to figure out "....who's going to be
> watching the camera feed?"  The other question that was asked was, "What is more of a
> deterrent - a security camera - or taking the cost of 30 cameras and hiring another pair of
> boots to walk around??"
> > So - I'm asking all of you:  What kind of physical security is preferred?  What kind of
> security measures are used in higher education to provide a reasonable level of security?
> Are folks using more "technology" - or more "warm bodies"??
> > Looking forward to your wisdom.....
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.