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

[Joe St Sauver <joe () OREGON UOREGON EDU>]

Michael asked:

#We're struggling with a debate on physical security measures.  

Very timely topic I think. In fact, just last week I delivered a talk
on physical security at the Internet2 Member Meeting. If you're interested
in seeing detailed slides, they're now up at 
http://pages.uoregon.edu/joe/phys-sec-i2mm/ (PPT and PDF formats provided).

Folks may also be interested in some slides I shared during the Internet2
Disaster Recovery BoF about the disasters in Japan, another sort of physical
security incident, see http://pages.uoregon.edu/joe/japan-tragedy/ (again, 
PPT and PDF formats provided).

#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 cam eras".  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...??" 

A lot of the attention post-Virginia Tech was around real time notification,
in part because the Clery Act required it. Thus a lot of schools have built 
out things like reverse-911 facilities, or digital warning signage, or 
campus siren systems, etc. You can see a discussion of some options at
http://pages.uoregon.edu/joe/notification/

Ultimately, I'm not sure anything can *stop* an active shooter incident on
campus except an armed good guy or good gal (and armed campus police/armed 
citizen concealed handgun license holders on campus are debate topics in 
and of their own right).

#Putting in cameras is fine - but then folks are trying to figure out 
#"....who's going to be watching the camera feed?"  

A pretty common model is for cameras to go to a digital video recorder, and 
then, if an alarm is sounded or an incident is discovered after the fact, the
stored video footage can be reviewed. Note that in many cases, perps may not 
look obviously "wrong" when viewed in real time over video w/o additional 
information, although there are exceptions, including things like:

-- some lugging out piles of electronics at 2AM,
-- someone actively assaulting a person,
-- someone attempting to start a fire or spraypaint grafiti, etc.

Camera monitoring tasks are simplified late at night/early in the morning 
when routine activity levels are typically low. 

#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 a nother pair of boots to walk around??"

It may be worth noting that the two costs are typically different: one's a 
one time capital cost, the other's an ongoing operational cost. Sometimes
budget funds are available for one, but not the other. 

I think the biggest deterrent is an active program of investigating and 
successfully prosecuting offenders, together with physically hardening your
facilities. For example, do you leave campus buildings unlocked even in 
the evenings? If so, a basic step is to secure those buildings and require
members of the campus community to swipe an ID card for entry. (Naturally,
you also need to train users to overcome the urge to "be polite" and hold
the door for someone coming right behind them, who may NOT be a member of
the community)

#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"??

I think you need both technology *and* people -- using both allows you 
to synergystically leverage the power of each, and without both, your
security may be pretty easily circumvented.

For example, one guard can't effectively patrol scores of buildings: 
all the bad guys/bad gals would need to do is wait until the guard had 
checked the facility that they're interested in, and then they'd be good
to go since the guard would presumably be busy checking all the other
facilities on his/her patrol route.

On the other hand, if you just have technical security measures (such as
cameras or intrusion alarms) you may be able to continuously monitor
a wider swath of facilities, but what will you do if an alarm goes off
and you see a bad guy on your video monitor? If you don't have onsite
guard personnel, your "intruder" call to your local PD will end up in
the queue with all the other incidents that are currently pending...
and the intruder may be gone by the time a local PD officer can respond
(which is one reason why intruder calls are typically low priority).

Don't know if this helped you with your questions, but there you go.

Regards,

Joe