In considering this technology, it’s important to evaluate the pros and cons of using it in an application. While the benefits may be clear, you should objectively review the pros and cons I explore in this article to help guide you in the decision-making process of using the technology.

Creating an environment that disorients and limits visibility of an adversary can be a significant deterrent and limit the negative outcome of a security incident. Consider these pros of security foggers:

Immediate Deterrence and Disorientation – When activated, fog generators quickly fill the protected area with thick fog, often within seconds. This sudden loss of visibility can scare intruders, causing them to flee immediately. The dense fog significantly hampers an intruder’s ability to navigate the space or identify targets, reducing the likelihood of theft or vandalism.

Rapid and Active Response – Fog generators are designed to activate swiftly once triggered. This can be from an automatic intrusion detection or from a manual trigger of a security device. This rapid response time is crucial in preventing the intruder from accomplishing their objective. While traditional alarms may only alert and possibly scare off intruders with sound, fog generators add a physical barrier, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the security system.

Non-Lethal and Safe – The fog produced is typically non-toxic and safe for humans and pets, ensuring that it doesn’t cause harm to innocent parties while still being effective against intruders. Unlike some other security measures, fog generators do not cause structural damage or leave lasting residues, making them suitable for protecting valuable assets without the risk of collateral damage.

Versatility and Coverage – Fog generators can be used in a range of environments, from small retail shops to large warehouses. They are adaptable to different spaces and security needs. Modern fog generators are capable of covering large areas quickly, making them effective even in expansive spaces.

Integration with Existing Systems – Fog generators can often be integrated with existing alarm, access, video surveillance systems, and other security measures, providing a comprehensive security solution without the need for a complete overhaul.

Psychological Impact – The psychological “fear-factor” effect of suddenly being enveloped in fog can be powerful. Intruders may panic, leading to hasty retreats and increased likelihood of apprehension by law enforcement.

As with any technology, it’s important to understand the potential downside. This will allow you to balance if the benefits outweigh the risks in its application. Consider these possible cons to the technology:

False or Delayed Activation – There is a risk of false alarms triggering the fog generator, which can result in unnecessary disruptions and the need for cleanup; even if no residue, exhausting the fog from the air requires specific effort. While there are ways to mitigate this by having remote alarm verification, this can add significant time into triggering the system, limiting its effectiveness.

Frequent Testing and Maintenance – To ensure reliability, any security technology, including fog generators, should have regular testing and maintenance. This can be prohibitive given how this technology works.

Limited Duration of Effect – Security foggers are a temporary measure. The fog is effective only for a limited time. Once it dissipates, normal visibility is restored, potentially allowing intruders to resume their activities if they manage to wait it out.

Life Safety and Health Concerns – These systems rapidly fill an environment with dense zero-visibility fog. In some scenarios, the sudden deployment of fog can create hazardous conditions for any occupants, making evacuation difficult. This technology may not be approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ); therefore, approval from the AHJ should be sought before installation.

Health Concerns – While generally safe, there can be concerns for individuals with respiratory issues or allergies. While the manufacturers of the technology indicate that it is safe, actual 3^rd party testing should be reviewed and disclosed to system owners prior to installation.

Training and Usage – Security personnel and staff need proper training to effectively handle and respond to fog generator activation. In reality, if this technology is activated it will be displacing to both employees and adversaries. So, a training protocol with regular reviews is critical to ensure the proper response and recovery of an activation.

False Sense of Security – Over-reliance on fog generators might lead to complacency in other areas of security, potentially creating vulnerabilities if the system fails or is bypassed.

Fog generators present a unique and effective addition to security systems, providing immediate deterrence and disorientation to intruders while being safe and non-lethal. Their rapid response, versatility, and ability to integrate with existing security measures make them an attractive option for various environments. However, they come with challenges, including the potential for false alarms, regulatory compliance, and costs associated with installation and maintenance. Proper training and regular maintenance are essential to maximize their effectiveness. Balancing these pros and cons can help determine whether fog generators are a suitable security measure for specific needs and environments.

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Clearing the Fog on Security Foggers appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

These technologies, which enable the identification of individuals based on their facial features, have been heralded as a breakthrough in enhancing security and streamlining law enforcement operations; however, they have also raised profound concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and potential abuses. As a response to these concerns, numerous cities and countries have started banning or heavily regulating the use of facial recognition technologies in these domains.

This has a big impact on the security industry as we prepare to understand, market, and deploy these technologies. Your customers will have questions, and their integrator should be able to provide some answers. Thus, it is essential to explore the arguments for and against the banning of facial recognition technologies in security and law enforcement to deliver the most informed recommendation to an end-user.

While the proponents of facial recognition technologies emphasize their utility, opponents argue that the risks and drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, leading to a growing movement to ban or heavily regulate their use in security and law enforcement.

The Rise of Facial Recognition Technologies
Facial recognition technologies have evolved at an astonishing pace. These systems utilize computer algorithms and databases of facial images to identify and verify individuals by analyzing distinct facial features. The technology has numerous applications, ranging from unlocking smartphones to enhancing security measures in public spaces and assisting law enforcement agencies.

Advocates of facial recognition technologies argue that they significantly contribute to national security and public safety. They cite instances where these systems have successfully identified and apprehended criminals, located missing persons, and thwarted potential terrorist threats. The potential applications are immense, including the rapid identification of suspects, enhancing border security, and improving the speed and accuracy of validating a person that may have been placed on a watch list.

The Case for Banning Facial Recognition Technologies
While the proponents of facial recognition technologies emphasize their utility, opponents argue that the risks and drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, leading to a growing movement to ban or heavily regulate their use in security and law enforcement.

Privacy concerns: The primary argument against facial recognition technologies is the grave invasion of personal privacy. The constant surveillance and monitoring of individuals in public spaces, without their consent or knowledge, raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The widespread use of these technologies could turn public areas into surveillance states, infringing on citizens’ rights to privacy and anonymity.

Inaccuracy and bias: Opponents have said these systems have been shown to exhibit a significant degree of inaccuracy, particularly when it comes to recognizing individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. This inherent bias can lead to wrongful arrests and misidentifications, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.

The potential for racial profiling and discrimination is a valid concern; however, tests of different facial recognition technologies have been conducted within the industry by IPVM.com that shows these systems can be successfully deployed but vary in their success by manufacturer.

Surveillance state: The deployment of facial recognition technologies has the potential to create a surveillance state, where individuals’ every move is tracked and recorded. This dystopian vision raises concerns about the erosion of personal freedoms and the establishment of a society where people are constantly watched and restricted in their actions.

Lack of accountability: In many cases, the use of facial recognition technologies lacks transparency and accountability. Law enforcement agencies and security firms may use these technologies without adequate oversight or regulations in place. This absence of checks and balances can lead to abuses of power and violations of civil liberties.

Security vulnerabilities: Facial recognition systems are not immune to security vulnerabilities. Hackers and cybercriminals could exploit these technologies to access sensitive information or manipulate data for malicious purposes. These vulnerabilities pose a significant risk to national security and individual privacy.

Bans and Regulations
In response to these concerns, several countries and cities have taken measures to regulate or prohibit the use of facial recognition technologies in various capacities. The website www.banfacialrecognition.com has a comprehensive list of U.S. locations where this technology is in use, under regulations, or banned.

European Union: The European Union has taken a proactive stance on protecting citizens’ privacy by implementing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). GDPR places stringent regulations on the use of biometric data, including facial recognition technology. It requires explicit consent for data collection and mandates clear rules for its use.

San Francisco, California: In 2019, San Francisco became the first major city in the United States to ban the use of facial recognition technology by government agencies. The ban is aimed at preventing government surveillance and protecting civil liberties.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts followed suit with regulations aimed at protecting the privacy of its citizens. The state enacted a law that prohibits facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes, except for cases involving serious criminal offenses.

Portland, Oregon: Portland passed a ban on the use of facial recognition technology by both public and private entities in 2020. The city cited concerns about civil rights and civil liberties as the driving force behind the ban.

The banning of facial recognition technologies in security and law enforcement is a complex issue that revolves around striking a balance between security and privacy. While these technologies hold significant promise in enhancing safety and aiding law enforcement, their potential for misuse, bias, and invasion of personal privacy has sparked a growing movement to restrict or prohibit their use. The global trend of implementing regulations and bans on facial recognition technology reflects the need to safeguard individual freedoms and civil liberties in an increasingly connected and surveilled world.

As you specify and endorse these systems for customers, I recommend consulting the Security Industry Association’s advocacy page on facial recognition technology.

What to Tell Your Customers
The future of facial recognition technology in security and law enforcement will likely involve continued debate and evolving regulations as governments and communities grapple with the challenge of preserving public safety while respecting fundamental rights. As technology advances and the societal landscape changes, finding a middle ground that respects both security concerns and individual privacy rights will remain a pressing issue for lawmakers, civil rights activists, and the general public.

As an industry we should note that the successful deployment and accuracy of these systems largely comes down to understanding the correct use-case, and designing the system to support the intended need. Too often, we rush to implement without considering proof of concept, not by the manufacturer, but within the context of the customers environment and application.

As you specify and endorse these systems for customers, I recommend consulting the Security Industry Association’s advocacy page on facial recognition technology (www.securityindustry.org/advocacy/policy-priorities/facial-recognition). The site includes research statistics that show positive support of facial recognition for public safety, air travel, workplace and other application areas. It also includes a full shareable document and a fact sheet exploring the values and the benefits of facial recognition that outlines each of SIA’s core principles regarding the responsible and effective use of facial recognition technology and makes recommendations for public- and private-sector applications of the technology, including by law enforcement. There are also success stories that integrators can use to validate the effectiveness of the technology.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Should Integrators Specify Facial Recognition? appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

DIY security technology is being marketed everywhere – TV commercials, online advertisements, big box stores, home improvement stores, etc., and just about every big name (Amazon with Blink, Ring and Alexa Guard Plus, Google with Nest, Blackstone with Vivint, Netgear with Arlo, ADT with Blue, and independents like SimpliSafe, Cove and many others) have positioned themselves in the DIY security game.

You can find alarm systems, various detectors, cameras, smart locks, just about every traditional security endpoint now comes as a IoT device that can easily be added to a home network or installed and configured with a smartphone.

The DIY market has a lot going for it, providing some significant advantages over its more traditional security technology predecessors. Here are five:

1. Easy to install and configure: In many cases, device enrollment is as easy as downloading an app and scanning a QR code, and the user is operational. Let’s face it, this is not the case in the commercial world, where knowledge of the device, the platform its operating on, and the networking system that connects the edge devices are all a part of the configuration process.

2. Quality and reliability: The output quality is comparable to commercial grade (noting some significant drawbacks with the DIY systems) and the reliability – while not to the level of its commercial grade comparable devices – is good enough for most consumers.

3. Low cost and barrier to entry: From cameras under $25 to smart locks hovering around $250, costs for this technology comparative to the commercial market are significantly lower. Many systems offer a trial or feature limited version of service that make the barrier to entry also very low – enabling consumers to try it out without making a big commitment. This is also very cleverly designed to draw them into a service plan.

4. Built-in RMR: The holy grail of the residential security market, these products have significant Recurring Monthly Revenue (RMR), making this a gold rush to grab market share.

5. Public safety impact: Many service providers have programs to support local law enforcement efforts with camera feeds. While this is a great tool for crime fighting, it is also a concern for privacy advocates in the over use of private-sector security technology for public sector use, and in the mass collection of data on the populous by big tech.

How Integrators Can Take Advantage

The pace has been set, the DIY installation of IoT security edge devices is here to stay. With its rapid growth and benefits that clearly make this an advantageous business venture for manufacturers, is the commercial market in danger of losing market share to innovations in DIY applications?

I believe the answer is yes, as least for small to mid-sized applications. The truth is that VSaaS and ACaaS companies are moving in this direction already, making the installation of security edge devices like cameras, sensors, and access points easier than ever to install and configure.

That said, I see some significant gaps that DIY manufacturers are not in a position to address, and it is where these gaps exist that commercial security integrators can provide a value-add to the emerging residential and commercial DIY market.

While DIY manufacturers are banking on the DIYer, the integration industry should be looking at the obvious holes it creates in both the residential and commercial marketplace. For us as an industry to adapt and embrace advances in technology, we need to find the areas where we can bring value to the user in the process of planning, designing, deploying, and managing this technology. Here are three key areas:

Advanced applications – These aaS and DIY systems are limited in their enterprise-level applications – especially when a customer needs high availability in critical facilities and applications, advanced configurations, integrations, and features from third-party manufacturers. Integrators and consultants need to know how to properly advise clients when they are considering what appears to be an easier solution. What are they losing with the “easier” solution? What are the holes of the “easy” solution?

Design and installation – Sure, any novice can put a camera up to watch the door, but what about resolution, pixels on target, frame rate, back light considerations, retention periods, etc., for video surveillance applications? Consider door hardware, egress requirements, credentialing technologies, etc., for access control. What about appropriate sensor selection and use, local code compliance, communications redundancy, etc., with alarm systems? These are all areas where the security professional is able to surpass a novice in designing and deploying a commercial or enterprise class system.

Specialized expertise – At the end of the day, even the most crafty DIYers have other responsibilities. Taking the time to review, select, purchase, install, and configure DIY systems is still extra work. Integrators have an opportunity to pick up this void in the market by offering residential and small business packages that are turnkey and also provide RMR.

Security technology professionals need to be ready to identify and respond to the changes in the market with viable solutions. By studying this and other market trends, you can see where the emerging technology is going and where it will influence the rest of the industry.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Is Commercial Sector DIY a Threat? appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

Why is the security industry so fearful of intrepidly moving forward and embracing these new technologies to enhance the overall effectiveness of their – or their customers’ – protection programs?

Common Barriers to Entry

In working with many end-users over the years, I have seen numerous, consistent, and repeating barriers to entry in adopting and embracing emerging technology. Often these barriers to entry are largely centered on leaving a comfort zone of the known for the unknown.

Let’s explore four of the key barriers to entry for end-users considering new and emerging technology:

Cutting edge vs. bleeding edge: Being an early adopter can be appealing – you are first in line to grab up the latest technology. Unfortunately, many times as new technology is first rolled out, it comes with a host of complexities in getting it to operate as intended. This is where the cutting edge turns into the bleeding edge – when the new technology causes the user, integrator and everyone involved in the rollout of the technology a painful go at getting it right.

In the meantime, someone needs to answer to the person in the organization who is paying the bills as to why this technology is not performing as expected – making the venture of becoming an early adopter painful, expensive, and potentially embarrassing.

How do you avoid this type of blunder in being an early adopter? You could, of course, wait until the manufacturer of the technology has taken their lumps from other early adopters. A better practice would be to think ahead of the curve using a lab environment to bench test any new technology before it gets introduced to you or your customer’s systems in an active capacity.

Have a rollback strategy vetted to ensure you have a path to return to a previous system configuration should your technology rollout go wrong. These best practices are valid for both emerging technology or simply adding new technology to your organization.

Leadership buy-in: Often, if leadership cannot see the direct correlation to saving time or money, it is a harder sell to get new and emerging technology embraced and funded. Sometimes the reverse is true, where leadership is introduced to a shiny new thing, and they want it – now!

Because of the urgency, it is everyone else’s task to make it happen.

How do you make the business case for a new technology? It is all in the numbers. In evaluating technology, most all technology is designed to do something better, faster, smarter, etc., and that gets expressed by two key factors: time and money. When making the case for new technology, detailing the short- and long-term savings in capital and operational expenses, as well as the human capital savings for adding technology, should enable end-users to express the return on investment. This is the key selling factor to obtaining leadership buy-in, and it is something integrators should be helping their clients to achieve.

Regulatory factors: Having new technology that can solve a problem for a regulated industry may have the customers lined up at an integrator’s door with interest, but they may be hesitant to make the purchase until the “powers that be” chime in with direction or approval.

For example, in the airport vertical, many new technologies that can work well in the airport environment take considerable time for the solution to be evaluated by the FAA and the National Safe Skies Alliance. Most airports will wait for this evaluation before it is is willing to dedicate the funding required to implement the solution.

In the regulated environment, there is not much workaround to this process; thus, it is best to set new and emerging technology up for early review. In some cases, the customer can serve as a test bed if they are willing.

Skepticism: The product always looks good on the trade show floor, but will it perform in the real world? Salespeople are great at pitching the promise, but battle-hardened security professionals know that big promises can come with big disappointments.

Unfortunately, those disappointments can tarnish good reputations. For that reason, seasoned security professionals are far more likely to shy away from technology that has not been vetted by peers and endorsed by other reputable firms and manufacturers.

To avoid the “cold shoulder” when introducing new and emerging technology to customers, it is best to know your facts about the product. Explain how it has been proven in the marketplace and what guarantees the manufacturer and supplier are willing to make behind its successful deployment. If you are truly confident in how the technology will perform, base your payment structure on the technology’s successful deployment and performance.

Take the risk off the customer. If the technology does not perform, remove it at no cost. If it works successfully, the customer pays a 10% premium – a win/win.

Keep Pedaling

Overall, removing the barriers to entry on new and emerging technology falls on the manufacturer. The end-user wants to know they will not end up spending money on something that does not perform, has a costly and frustrating implementation, and creates a generally embarrassing situation professionally that needs to be explained to leadership.

In the meantime, manufacturers should keep bringing those solutions to market and integrators and consultants should be making the case for their successful implementation.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý.ĚýPaul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Overcoming Barriers to Entry appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

If you are considering this as a provider or an end-user, you will need to look beyond the sales pitch to see the true value – and the drawbacks – of this technology trend.

At first pass, the “aaS” model can be very annoying to me as a consumer. I used to go into a store or browse online at the software available and buy it outright. If I elected to upgrade to a newer version in the future I could, but my hand was seldom forced, and the power was all mine.

Now, you are hard-pressed to find a software platform that is not offered in some type of subscription or SaaS model, and this trend is moving from the software world to hardware, systems and services. It is like you cannot “buy” anymore, only rent, but is this all bad?

The Pros and Cons
Understanding some of the pros and cons of this trend can help you understand its value, both to yourself individually and to an overall organization. While there are many aspects of the “aaS” sales model, here are five considerations you should evaluate prior to making the commitment – keeping in mind that one person’s pro may be another person’s con. Thus, consider these points under your own application and circumstances.

1. Limits expensive server hardware: When using platforms like Ava Security, Brivo, OpenEye, IronYun, etc. certain configurations of these services can be cloud-based. This can reduce or eliminate the need for on-premises servers, which are costly and have a limited lifespan.

If your customer is considering a traditional deployment of security technology, they need to consider that the servers installed on premises will come at a high cost and will need to be replaced in 5-8 years. They will also need to consider that they will likely need a Software Service Agreement (SSA) and a preventive maintenance contract to keep the system updated with patches, fixes and version releases. With an “aaS” model, all of this is included.

2. CapEx vs OpEx: While evaluating “aaS” options, take into consideration how the customer will buy the technology. Many construction projects have deeper CapEx budgets to allow for the initial procurement and installation of expensive security technology; however, buying “aaS” typically gets expensed through OpEx budgets and is a recurring monthly or annual expense – which can be more highly scrutinized. Having a thorough understanding of how “aaS” is funded and working out the details with the end-user’s finance department is critical to resolving push-back regardless of what solution is up for consideration.
3. Critical facilities, SOCs and uptime requirements: For facilities that operate in a critical capacity and have an on-site SOC, GSOC, or other real-time point of aggregating security information, close attention to “aaS” features are mandatory. Most “aaS” offerings have some or all features that are entirely dependent on outbound network connectivity; therefore, if the network fails, the security operation loses the ability to access and use the “aaS” product.

When evaluating “aaS,” ask your customer very pointed and hard questions about what services operate and if there are critical services that will not work in the event that outbound network connectivity is severed.

4. Bandwidth and network: The “aaS” sales pitch is typically a good one when it is well-perfected and delivered, but there are some downsides to consider, and integrators will need the end-user’s IT department or a non-biased third party like a consultant to help navigate the sales pitch and dig into the tech requirements of the network.

Having 10, 50, 100, or 1000 cameras at a facility that are going to a cloud-based “aaS” will have big implications on network architecture and bandwidth. Be sure this is fully understood before making a commitment to the “aaS” technology.

5. Proprietary equipment: Some “aaS” platforms openly accept cameras and edge technology from multiple manufacturers; others have cameras that can be used on other systems should you elect to stop using those systems in the future. That said, be warned that this is not the case for all “aaS” providers; in fact, some providers’ cameras are as good as a brick should your customer stop using the “aaS” platform. This could be a costly and embarrassing mistake.

Best Practices
Here are key takeaways for considering any type of “aaS” model for software, systems, or services:

Thoroughly understand what your customer’s needs are before calling “aaS” companies in to do a sales pitch. Not having this will distract you with sales presentation sparkles, bells, and whistles that may be great features, but can deviate from the core performance objectives required to serve the business.

Understand the points of failure in “aaS” models and be willing to accept the risks they present. Knowing exactly where the points of failure are enables the integrator and end-user to build operational processes to stopgap the vulnerability should a failure occur.

Know the total cost of ownership (TCO) of both the “aaS” and traditional deployment of the software, systems, and services you are evaluating.

Don’t go it alone. Bring in IT, Finance, and other key stakeholders of the business to help evaluate the solution from their areas of expertise.

Paul F. Benne is a 35-year veteran in the protective services industry. He is President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ LLC, a security consulting and design firm in based in New York City. Connect with him at www.linkedin.com/in/paulbenne or visit www.sentinelconsulting.us.

Article Link – https://www.securityinfowatch.com/integrators/article/21278024/tech-trends-security-tech-for-nonsecurity-stakeholders

This article originally appeared in the November 2022 issue of Security Business magazine. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Everything as a Service appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

I had the privilege of assisting the Elmira Corning Regional Airport in designing two new methods of protecting the airport.ĚýIn an article published by Airport Improvement Magazine, the two new concepts are explained. The first being a virtual fence system tied to the access control system to protect the AOA and the second being automated exit lane monitoring.

Below is a link to the article that provides full details on the systems deployed.

Article Link

Video – Local news coverage of the story below.

The post Innovations in Airport Security appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´’s approach to security design is a holistic one.  It focuses on the what and how of risk mitigation.  It is beyond a best practices approach, in that countermeasures are not selected and deployed simply because its a standard or general industry practice.  Instead, a risk-based approach is used.  All aspects of a Client’s operation are considered and the risks are studied.  Countermeasures are then selected and deployed to mitigate these observed risks.

This is where the relationship between our Security Consultants and Security Engineers becomes so apparent.  Our Security Consultants specialize in identifying threats and vulnerabilities against given assets, resulting in a risk profile.  This is the WHAT and WHY.

Security Engineers then review this risk profile with our Security Consultants and determine what countermeasures are appropriate, whether they be physical or electronic, or a combination thereof.  This is the HOW.

WHAT and WHY are we protecting? HOW are we going to protect it?

These questions form the basis of every design that ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ produces.  Security Engineers cannot alone determine the proper countermeasures, where there needed, and why they’re needed. Security Consultants cannot alone determine how physical and electronic security countermeasures can be deployed and managed.  Only working together, and combining knowledge and experience, can a successful security program be implemented.

The Security Consultants at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ have in depth, real world knowledge of security operations, emergency response, and understand how countermeasures are used to mitigate risks.

The Security Engineers at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ are educated engineers with knowledge and experience in a variety of physical and electronic countermeasures, their design requirements, deployment, and how they are operated.

Don’t simply lock your front door and back door because its a best practice.  Consider your risks, and mitigate those risks properly.  Simply placing a lock on a door may not be adequate protection for your most valued assets.  What assets do you have that require specific mitigations?

The post The Relationship between Security Consultants and Security Engineers appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

The NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) recognize 25 different engineering trades.Ěý The NCEES provides licensing in these trades to certified engineers who wish to become Professional Engineers.Ěý See a full list at this link: .Ěý The NCEES does not list Security Engineering.

So what is Security Engineering?  Let’s break it up and start with the term “security.”  According to Merriam-Webster, “security” is defined as “the state of being protected or safe from harm” and also “things done to make people or places safe.”  Now looking at Merriam-Webster’s definition for “engineering,” they state: “the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people.”  Now, if you’re following along, type in “security engineering” into Merriam-Webster.Ěý The definition is not found.

Security Engineering is the application of science and mathematics by which the proper ties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are used to provide a state of protection and keep individuals and/or their property safe from harm.

Easy peasy.

When asked, and I have a few minutes to explain I usually tell it like this: I provide my clients with engineering expertise when selecting and deploying any type of physical, electronic, cyber, cultural, operational or non-tangible security countermeasure to protect and thwart any type of threat against them or their assets.Ěý Refer to Paul’s post on the security domains to learn what each domain encompasses (ADD LINK).

Okay, so are we actually “engineers?  Yes.Ěý I for one, am technically, by school, an Electrical and Computer Engineer.Ěý Given the requirements today of modern security engineering and the technologies deployed by security engineerings, low voltage electrical and computer engineering knowledge is required.Ěý I plan on expanding this idea in future posts.

The term “engineer is thrown around quite a bit today. Their are many variations of engineer, engineering technician, programmer, etc. and a quick Monster job search provides many varied positions in many varied fields.Ěý Their are some big educational and training differences between engineers and engineering technicians, for example.

However, when looking specifically at the term Security Engineer, I often get reached out to by recruiters but the position they’re offering is typically an IT Security Engineer.Ěý The jobs involve network cyber security requirements and programming knowledge.Ěý A true Security Engineer is well rounded in all the security domains and understands the requirements for cyber security (firewalls) and physical security (berms and planters).

To expand on this, we look at the NCEES and the licensing of engineers.Ěý When becoming a Professional Engineer through the NCEES, an engineer’s education and work experience are all evaluated.Ěý The engineer is placed through two grueling eight hour exams, typically four years apart.Ěý Upon successful completion of the exam, the engineer becomes licensed in his or her state and dubbed a Professional Engineer with “P.E. as a title.

As you can see, my name (at the time of this article) has an “E.I.T. suffix.Ěý This stands for “Engineer in Training and signifies that I am halfway to achieving my P.E. license.

The most important aspect of the P.E. is that once those letters are attached to an engineer’s name and they have become a certified, professional engineer, they are no longer a civil engineer, or a mechanical engineer, or a security engineer.Ěý They are an Engineer.Ěý A title that requires the understanding, even if mildly, of all aspects of engineering.Ěý The individual does not need to be an expert in every field of engineer, but must excel at their own discipline.Ěý The awareness of other trades and how their trade can impact others is vital to the success of a professional engineer.

Security is a field that impacts many of the common trades involved in today’s construction projects.Ěý Security is a necessity to many of our Clients that is typically not a profit builder, but a budget spender.Ěý To help determine the most economical, efficient, and intelligent selection and deployment of countermeasures for your organization, only a Security Engineer with the proper knowledge can confidently secure your assets.

In the next post, I am going to discuss the differences and the interactions between a Security Consultant and a Security Engineer, and why you need both.

The post The Meaning of Security Engineering appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.