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´´.

A Security Operations Center (SOC) serves as the nerve center for monitoring, detecting, and responding to security incidents. Integrating Protective Intelligence within the SOC framework not only bolsters its efficacy, but it also empowers proactive measures against potential vulnerabilities.

Understanding Protective Intelligence

Protective Intelligence encompasses the proactive gathering, analysis, and dissemination of information to preempt and mitigate security threats. Unlike traditional reactive approaches, which respond after an incident occurs, Protective Intelligence focuses on identifying potential risks before they materialize. This proactive stance enables security teams to anticipate threats, assess vulnerabilities, and implement preemptive measures, thereby minimizing the effects of a potential event.

Fortifying the SOC with Protective Intelligence provides security teams with actionable information that was previously non-existent or difficult to come by. Today, robust platforms like samdesk (), Dataminr (), and LifeRaft (), are game-changers in empowering security teams with Protective Intelligence.

In an era defined by evolving cyber threats, geopolitical instability, and emerging risks, the role of Protective Intelligence in enhancing the performance of SOCs cannot be overstated. By adopting a proactive stance rooted in intelligence-driven decision-making, organizations can fortify their security program, mitigate risks, and safeguard their assets against potential threats. Here are some of the key features and benefits these platforms provide:

Early Threat Detection: One of the primary advantages of incorporating Protective Intelligence into SOC operations is the ability to detect threats at an early stage. By leveraging various sources – such as open-source intelligence, social media monitoring, and threat intelligence feeds – security analysts can identify indicators of potential threats before they escalate. This early detection enables swift intervention, preventing potential breaches or attacks.

By analyzing threat patterns and tactics, security teams can devise preemptive measures to deter potential adversaries.

Risk Assessment and Prioritization: Protective Intelligence provides valuable insights for risk assessment and prioritization within the SOC. By analyzing the credibility and severity of threats, security teams can allocate resources effectively, focusing on the most critical areas of concern. This targeted approach increases operational efficiency and ensures that the SOC remains vigilant against the most significant risks.

Enhanced Situational Awareness: Real-time intelligence feeds and threat analysis enhance the situational awareness of SOC operators. By continuously monitoring evolving threats and trends, security analysts gain a comprehensive understanding of the threat landscape. This heightened awareness enables proactive decision-making and rapid response to emerging security challenges, minimizing potential disruptions to business operations.

Threat Mitigation Strategies: Protective Intelligence enables the development of proactive threat mitigation strategies tailored to specific risks. By analyzing threat patterns and tactics, security teams can devise preemptive measures to deter potential adversaries. Whether through enhanced perimeter security, employee awareness training, or advanced threat-hunting techniques, Protective Intelligence empowers SOC operators to stay one step ahead of potential threats.

Intelligence-Led Investigations: Integrating Protective Intelligence into SOC operations facilitates intelligence-led investigations into security incidents. By correlating internal security data with external threat intelligence, analysts can uncover patterns, trends, and indicators of compromise more effectively. This intelligence-led approach streamlines incident response efforts, enabling faster containment and remediation of security breaches.

Proactive Threat Hunting: Protective Intelligence empowers SOC teams to engage in proactive threat-hunting activities. By leveraging advanced analytics and threat intelligence, analysts can proactively search for signs of malicious activity within the network. This proactive stance allows security teams to identify and neutralize threats before they cause significant harm, enhancing the efficacy of organizational defenses.

Collaborative Intelligence Sharing: Effective Protective Intelligence relies on collaboration and information sharing both within the organization and with external partners. By participating in threat intelligence sharing communities and industry forums, SOC teams can gain access to valuable insights and collective intelligence. This collaborative approach enhances the accuracy and timeliness of threat intelligence, strengthening the overall security posture of the organization.

Challenges to Avoid

While the benefits of Protective Intelligence are undeniable, implementing and managing an effective program within the SOC comes with its own set of challenges. The following considerations should be acknowledged and planned for when considering and deploying a Protective Intelligence program. This will minimize any negative or adverse effects of using this technology.

Data Overload: The sheer volume of data generated by various intelligence sources can overwhelm SOC analysts, making it challenging to separate qualified threats from noise. Narrowing the focus of the information these systems collect will help reduce the volume of inbound information that the SOC needs to review.

Resource Constraints: Building and maintaining a robust protective intelligence program requires dedicated resources, including skilled personnel, technology infrastructure, and ongoing training. To implement a Protective Intelligence program, there should be an analysis of whether current SOC staff are able to handle the additional tasks associated with accurately and efficiently curating the inbound intelligence.

Integration Complexity: Integrating disparate intelligence sources and tools into the SOC ecosystem can be complex, requiring seamless interoperability and data correlation capabilities. It is best to crawl before you run, keeping the program simple before creating multiple system dependencies.

Privacy and Compliance: Adhering to privacy regulations and compliance standards while collecting and analyzing intelligence data is critical to maintaining trust and legality. It is important to collaborate with your legal team when creating a Protective Intelligence program to play it safe.

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: The Power of Protective Intelligence 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´´.

VIPs may be targets of stalkers, protesters, the paparazzi, and other bad actors seeking to do harm. Security teams need the tools to maintain situational awareness and facilitate command and control wherever heightened protection is called for. It’s a tall order.

Public events like parades, political rallies, sporting events, speeches, and performances, as well as private affairs, like the weddings and funerals of the rich and famous, occur in locations that are difficult to secure. Coverage must often span massive areas. Threats can come from any direction, including overhead and far beyond the event’s official perimeter.

Event security is focused on maintaining a secure environment for the public at large. Meanwhile, executive protection services must stand up separate command and controls dedicated to keeping their clients safe.

Deploying a dedicated command and control is expensive, as it must be equipped with much of the same technology as a permanent security operations center (SOC). Plus, it must provide reliable and redundant connectivity to all systems and devices utilized across the event site without the benefit of a permanent infrastructure.

Public sector dignitaries have protective details equipped to mount exhaustive security operations on their behalf. The U.S. Capitol Police, Secret Service, federal, and state agencies each have an abundance of resources, including a fleet of mobile command vehicles ready to deploy to protect dignitaries and politicians. The private sector does not. Unless such individuals face a specific threat against them, they typically must pay for their own security.

Fortunately, a new option has recently entered the security marketplace: mobile command as a service (MCaaS). Just as VIPs may invest in fractional jet ownership, MCaaS provides access to a fully equipped, state-of-the-art mobile command vehicle for a specified number of engagements per year.

When comparing services, here’s what stakeholders should consider.

What Technologies Are Included?
To approximate the command-and-control systems utilized by public sector dignitaries, an MCaaS solution should include an array of integrated security technologies from best-in-class manufacturers. Look for:

Video surveillance

Video analytics

Aerial drone surveillance

Drone detection

Gunfire detection

Perimeter protection

Real-time weather monitoring

Social media monitoring

Communication systems are equally important. A fully equipped mobile command should offer the following:

VoIP telephones

2-way radios

Cellular PTT radios

Satellite telephone, TV, and radio

Satellite and cellular data

Public address systems

The service should include the deployment of temporary cameras and other devices across the event site. Coverage should extend to broad perimeter monitoring, while placing an emphasis on areas where the client is most vulnerable, such as the green room, stage, and any walkways the client may traverse.

Live monitoring of social media is critical, as it may provide advance warning of potential threats. There should also be communication channels between event security and private security teams. If event security must contend with danger anywhere onsite, private security must have sufficient knowledge to evacuate its charge via the safest route possible

How Is It Deployed?
The “S” in mobile command as a service differentiates today’s new offerings from more traditional rental models. A quick Web search of mobile command rentals will result in rental trailers equipped with communication systems and a workstation for video surveillance monitoring.

MCaaS represents a much broader suite of technologies, plus it includes the expertise of security professionals to assist private details with systems engineering, training, and onsite deployment. They can also attend events, working side-by-side with members of the executive protection service. MCaaS provides high-profile executives, high-net-worth individuals, and celebrities with the same tools and technologies used to protect top-level public sector VIPs.

To ensure the availability of vehicles, MCaaS providers may cap the number of clients they enroll to maintain a suitable client/vehicle ratio. They may also offer services to a limited geographic area, minimizing travel time before an event. An overextended MCaaS provider may not be able to deliver services when needed, negating the value of the investment.

A Paradigm Shift
The security industry’s digital transformation has brought countless new technologies to the market. Unfortunately, they only help the customers that can afford them. Many technology manufacturers have migrated to a recurring revenue model to reduce upfront hardware costs, thus making their cutting-edge solutions accessible to a broader base. Customers benefit from always-current systems that require less maintenance, include free updates, and offer operational expenditure tax advantages.

MCaaS offers similar value propositions, albeit on a grander scale. VIPs, or the executive protection services that protect them, may have previously deemed a fully-equipped mobile command as beyond budget. MCaaS will level the playing field, bringing grade-A resources to the private sector. It’s a paradigm shift whose time has come.

Article Link –

Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Elevating Executive Security with Mobile Command as a Service appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

For years, AX – formally known as Anime Con – earned the unfortunate nickname of “line-con” due to massive crowds that formed just to gain entrance, which meant headaches for security and operations staff.

Thanks to a unique combination of weapons screening technology, guard and canine services, and temporary security technology – all coordinated by security firm ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ – AX 2022 was a rousing success. The project has been named has been named as an honorable mention in the 2022 Security Vanguard Awards from SecurityInfoWatch, Security Business magazine and Security Technology Executive (STE) magazine.

The Crowd Control Challenge
Based on turnstiles at the entrances, more than 110,000 people attended the Anime Expo over the three days at multiple venues, including the Los Angeles Convention Center, Novo (an indoor club), and the Microsoft Theater.

Efficient screening was the first challenge for Michael Grossman, a senior advisor at New York City-based ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´
Photo: Anime Expo
A carefully crafted screening strategy helped was part of a successful crowd control effort at the 2022 Anime Expo in Los Angeles.
A carefully crafted screening strategy helped was part of a successful crowd control effort at the 2022 Anime Expo in Los Angeles.
Consulting, who was responsible for all security planning and operations, including the preparation of a comprehensive operations plan and the management of the overall on- site security operations.

A massive crowd is one thing, but the vast majority of these attendees came to the AX venues in full costumes – many including imitation weapons. The Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation (SPJA), the event organizer, also required COVID-19 checkpoints.

“We were getting people into the buildings, but the crowding on the outside [creates] a soft target,” explains Matthew Thomas, SPJA’s senior director of operations.

Thankfully, Grossman and the ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ team came up with a multi-faceted solution, combining high-throughput weapons screening technology with good, old-fashioned security officers – provided by Ayvar Security, JRM Security and Executive Event Services – and canine teams from MSA Security Services, a division of Allied Universal. Additionally, RFID badging implemented at the show helped with counting attendees and protected against people getting in without the proper credentials.

“It is not all high-tech, but when you use all those things to your advantage and integrate their use, that makes a system more efficient and there are a lot fewer problems,” Grossman says.

As for the technology aspect of the crowd control technology, Thomas and Grossman zeroed in on the Evolv Express, a high-throughput walk-through weapons screening system that uses digital sensors and artificial intelligence to spot concealed weapons and other threats.

The company claims a unit can screen 4,000 people per hour, and that the technology has been successfully used at stadiums, theme parks, hospitals, schools and other busy venues. Ideally, the technology is accurate enough that people are not required to stop, empty their pockets or remove bags as they are screened.

2022 was the first year that AX used the screening technology, and Thomas – who held previous security operations roles at Universal Studios and Westfield malls – says it enhanced the throughput of patrons from 55 people per hour to 300 people per hour at each entry point.

“Honestly, I think it was a little too quick, and we slowed that down on site just to be very thorough,” Thomas admits. “That was due to my thinking that it is impossible. I am used to the metal detector going off on every belt buckle.”

Achieving Situational Awareness
Grossman – who retired from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in 2013 as chief of the Homeland Security Division and later served as SVP of U.S. National Security for Westfield Corp., where he oversaw security operations for 32 malls across the nation – assembled a security command center at AX that coordinated the activities of all security and life safety agencies, including convention center security and private contractors, Los Angeles Police Department, and many others.

Through the assistance of Las Vegas-based Unified Command, a temporary surveillance system was also deployed, with cameras placed at strategic locations to maintain situational awareness at key points throughout the venue. The temporary system focused on areas outside the venues, since the buildings had their own cameras.

“We were working with the existing Convention Center security with their technology and adding on our technology to compliment,” Thomas says. “That really helps us get good angles to manage crowds and respond to certain things from the [security monitoring] perspective.”

Those working in the Unified Command post could monitor cameras, zoom in on nearly any area or focus on certain cameras. “They know exactly the things that need to be seen and where to put cameras,” Grossman says, adding that the command post at AX was similar to one that he might set up for a large wildfire or other major event.

“You have representatives from all the agencies that do security or emergency response in the same room and monitor for 24 hours a day through the entire event,” he explains. “If you don’t have adequate planning, and documented planning, a clear organizational chart, clear lines of communication, and contingency plans, [if] something comes up, it is pretty tough to manage,” Grossman says.

In reviewing the successful AX 2022 security operations, Thomas says “the secret sauce is there right now” to maintain an effective security program for AX in the future. As for similar events, he implores event security managers to take advantage of all the technology and tools available, even if the cost is hard to swallow.

“All it could take is one situation, and you no longer have an event anymore,” Thomas says. “I like spending a bunch of money on security…because [it means] we’ve done the most that we can to protect everybody.”

John Dobberstein is managing editor of SecurityInfoWatch.com.

Project Overview: Anime Expo

Project submitted by: ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

Weapons Screening: Evolv Technology

Temporary Surveillance System: Unified Command

Video Management System: Milestone

Guard Services: Ayvar Security, JRM Security and Executive Event Services

Canine Services: MSA Security Services

This article is part of the annual Security Vanguard Awards, presented by SecurityInfoWatch.com, Security Business magazine and Security Technology Executive (STE) magazine. Learn more about the Vanguard and its many winners over the years at www.securityinfowatch.com/vanguard.

Article Link – https://www.securityinfowatch.com/security-executives/article/21284746/keeping-350k-anime-expo-attendees-safe

The post Keeping 350K Anime Expo Attendees Safe appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

Using their extensive security knowledge, Paul teaches the officers about Perimeter Security and the Security Survey. John teaches on Video Surveillance System and Biometrics.

Other classes such as Access Control, Window Glazing, and CPTED are provided.  All the instructors are volunteers and many, including Paul and John, are members of ASIS councils.

The post NYPD: Basic Methods of Security appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.