In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), businesses are increasingly integrating AI systems into physical security technologies such as video surveillance and access control systems. These advancements promise enhanced security, streamlined operations, and improved incident response. However, as AI becomes more embedded in these critical systems, the need for robust AI governance has become evident. One of the emerging roles within this domain is an AI Governance Specialists, whose primary responsibility is to validate output data from AI systems and confirm authenticity.  

The Importance of AI Governance in Physical Security can be broken down into a few key categories to better understand its need and value.  

Ensuring Accuracy and Reliability – AI systems, particularly those involving machine learning algorithms, are only as good as the data they are trained on and the parameters set by their developers. These systems can produce erroneous or biased outputs if not carefully monitored and validated. AI governance ensures that the outputs generated by AI systems, such as facial recognition or behavior analysis, are accurate, reliable, and free from biases that could lead to false alerts or missed detections. 

Mitigating Risks and Ethical Concerns – AI technologies pose several risks, including privacy issues, security threats, and ethical dilemmas. For instance, AI-powered surveillance systems can inadvertently reinforce societal biases present in their training data, leading to discriminatory practices. AI governance frameworks help identify and mitigate these risks by establishing ethical guidelines and compliance standards that AI systems must adhere to, ensuring that the technology is used responsibly and ethically. 

Regulatory Compliance – With the rise of AI, regulatory bodies worldwide are introducing new laws and guidelines to govern its use, particularly in surveillance and access control. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) includes provisions that impact AI, such as the right to explanation and data minimization. Companies must comply with these regulations to avoid legal repercussions. Effective AI governance helps businesses navigate these complex regulatory landscapes by implementing policies and procedures that ensure compliance. 

An AI Governance Specialists can provide value to an organization by addressing some fundamental elements of AI enabled systems. 

Validating Output Data – One of the primary responsibilities of AI Governance Specialists is to validate the output data generated by AI systems. This involves assessing the data for accuracy, consistency, and reliability. Specialists should use “air-gapped” or raw data to cross-check AI outputs, such as identifying suspicious activities or unauthorized access attempts, against known benchmarks and standards, ensuring that the data is trustworthy and actionable. 

Confirming Authenticity – In addition to validating the accuracy of AI outputs, AI Governance Specialists should also focus on confirming the authenticity of data. This process includes verifying the source of the data, ensuring that it has not been tampered with, and confirming that it meets the necessary quality standards. By doing so, they help maintain the integrity of the data used by AI systems, which is crucial for making informed security decisions. 

Monitoring and Auditing AI Systems – AI Governance Specialists should also be responsible for continuously monitoring and auditing AI systems to detect any anomalies or deviations from expected behavior. Regular audits help identify potential issues early on, allowing companies to take corrective actions before any significant harm occurs. This proactive approach ensures that AI systems remain aligned with security objectives and ethical standards. 

Developing and Implementing Governance Frameworks – Creating a robust AI governance framework is essential for managing the complexities associated with AI technologies. AI Governance Specialists play a crucial role in developing these frameworks, which include policies, procedures, and best practices for AI deployment and use. They ensure that these frameworks are consistently applied across the organization, promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior. 

As Security Consultants and Integrators recommend or provide these AI driven systems to the End User marketplace, they should advise their customers when and why they should employee an AI Governance Specialist. This is especially true for high consequence, high profile, and high target value organizations.  

In today’s digital age, a company’s reputation can be significantly impacted by how it uses and manages AI technologies. Incidents involving biased AI outputs or data breaches can lead to public backlash and loss of trust. By employing AI Governance Specialists, companies can demonstrate their commitment to ethical AI practices, thereby protecting their reputation and building customer confidence. 

Reliable and authentic data is the cornerstone of effective decision-making, especially when its concerning security and the protection of assets. AI Governance Specialists should ensure that the data used by AI systems is accurate and trustworthy, leading to better security insights and outcomes. This enhances the overall decision-making process, allowing companies to leverage AI’s full potential while minimizing risks. 

Companies that prioritize AI governance are better positioned to leverage AI technologies effectively and ethically. This not only helps in mitigating risks but also provides a competitive advantage by fostering innovation and improving operational efficiency. Businesses that invest in AI governance are likely to be more agile and resilient, adapting quickly to changing security threats and technological advancements. 

Stakeholders, including customers, investors, and regulators, are increasingly concerned about the ethical use of AI. By implementing robust AI governance practices, companies can address these concerns proactively, ensuring transparency and accountability in their AI systems. This fosters trust and strengthens relationships with key stakeholders. 

As AI continues to transform the landscape of physical security, the need for robust AI governance is clearly emerging. Employing AI Governance to validate output data and confirm its authenticity is a vital step towards ensuring the ethical and responsible use of AI technologies. These specialists play a key role in safeguarding data integrity, enhancing decision-making, and maintaining regulatory compliance. For companies looking to harness the power of AI while mitigating risks, investing in AI governance is not just a necessity—it’s a strategic imperative. 

The post The Emerging Need for AI Governance in Security TechnologiesĚý appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

In the dynamic world of IT and security, the concept of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) has revolutionized how organizations manage employee devices. Today, a new evolution in this paradigm is emerging: BYOC (Bring Your Own Credential). This innovative approach promises to transform access control systems, offering enhanced security, privacy, and efficiency. As users bring their own access credentials on mobile devices to system owners, BYOC mitigates the need for organizations to issue new credentials and aligns with stringent data protection regulations like GDPR and CCPA.

Understanding BYOC

BYOC is a model where individuals use their personal mobile devices to carry access credentials, which can then be integrated into an organization’s access control system. This shift not only simplifies the process of credential management but also places greater control over personal information in the hands of the user. Unlike traditional methods where access credentials are issued by the system owner, BYOC allows users to maintain their personal data, thereby enhancing privacy and compliance with data protection laws.

The Mechanics of BYOC

The BYOC model operates through a series of streamlined steps:

1. Credential Creation: Users generate access credentials on their mobile devices through a secure app. These credentials can be encrypted and stored safely on the device.

2. Credential Submission: When a user needs access to a system, they present their mobile device to the system owner. The credential can be shared via QR codes, NFC (Near Field Communication), or secure cloud-based exchanges.

3. System Integration: The system owner integrates the provided credential into their access control system, granting the user the necessary permissions without issuing new credentials.

4. Revocation and Updates: Users and system owners can update or revoke their credentials directly from their devices or on the access control system, providing a dynamic and responsive approach to access management.

So why should we be considering BYOC?

Consider these points:

Enhanced Security – BYOC leverages the advanced security features of modern mobile devices, such as biometrics, encryption, and secure storage. By doing so, it reduces the risk of credential theft or duplication. Since the credentials are not stored in a centralized database, the attack surface for potential breaches is minimized.

Improved Privacy Compliance – Data privacy regulations like GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) require stringent controls over personal data. BYOC inherently supports these regulations by allowing users to retain control over their personal information. Since credentials are created and managed by the user, there is less risk of personal data being mishandled or exposed during the credentialing process.

Cost Efficiency – Issuing and managing physical access credentials can be costly and time-consuming for organizations. BYOC reduces these overheads by shifting the responsibility of credential management to the user. This not only lowers costs but also simplifies administrative processes associated with credential issuance and maintenance.

User Convenience – Users benefit from the convenience of carrying access credentials on devices they already use daily. This eliminates the need to manage multiple physical cards or fobs, streamlining their interactions with various access control systems. Additionally, updates to credentials can be made in real-time, enhancing user experience and reducing downtime.

Implementing BYOC does have its Challenges

When considering this approach to credentialing you should be aware of some key factors that could impact adopting the technology.

Technical Compatibility – For BYOC to be effective, access control systems must be compatible with a wide range of mobile devices and credential formats. This requires investment in technology that can interface seamlessly with different operating systems and communication protocols.

Security Assurance – While BYOC offers enhanced security features, ensuring these are robust and effective is crucial. Organizations must implement rigorous security protocols to protect against potential vulnerabilities in mobile devices and credential transmission processes.

User Training and Support – Adopting BYOC involves a cultural shift for both users and system administrators. Comprehensive training programs are essential to ensure all stakeholders understand how to create, manage, and use mobile credentials securely. Ongoing support must be provided to address any issues or concerns that arise during the transition.

Regulatory Compliance – Despite its inherent advantages, organizations must still ensure that their BYOC implementations fully comply with relevant regulations. This involves regular audits and updates to policies and procedures to align with evolving legal requirements.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the adoption of BYOC is likely to grow. Its potential to enhance security, privacy, and efficiency makes it an attractive option for organizations. Looking ahead, several trends are poised to shape the future of BYOC.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is expanding rapidly, and BYOC can integrate seamlessly with IoT devices to offer even more streamlined access control solutions. For instance, smart locks and other IoT-enabled access points can interact directly with mobile credentials, further simplifying user interactions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) can be employed to monitor and analyze access patterns, identifying potential security threats in real-time. These technologies can enhance the overall security posture of BYOC implementations by detecting anomalies and enforcing dynamic access controls.

The paradigm shift to BYOC represents a significant advancement in access control systems. By enabling users to bring their own credentials, organizations can enhance security, improve compliance with data protection regulations, and reduce costs. While challenges remain, the potential benefits of BYOC make it a compelling option for advancing access control systems. As technology continues to evolve, BYOC is set to become a cornerstone of secure and efficient access management in the digital age.

This article originally appeared in theĚýĚý´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: BYOC to Usher in a new era in access control 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 theĚýĚý´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´´.

The gold standard for decades in maintaining dedicated and reliable inbound and outbound communications has been the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) line. It has been very typical to install POTS lines for duress alarms, intrusion detection systems, emergency intercoms, and dedicated voice lines for security operations and operations centers.

One of the great appeals for using POTS (besides being the only thing available) was that the POTS line provided both power and communications over a copper wire. The phones were powered by the telephone companies’ infrastructure, moving the points of failure outside of the users control, and onto the responsibility of the service provider. This type of system would provide for communications even if power was out. Amazingly, you could lose power and the phone would still work. Sure, it doesn’t sound impressive now, but in the 1970s it was.

As cellular technology became more dependable and widely available, many companies started to use this communications pathway as a backup or redundant method of communications; however, at the time, the technology was cost-prohibitive to deploy and use as a primary communication pathway, unless site specific conditions warranted its use in that capacity. Cellular technology has since become a viable option for both primary and backup communications of voice and data.

Now with more and more devices being IP-based, as well as the need to consolidate systems for voice and data communications, service providers are sunsetting the old and expensive-to-maintain POTS service – moving to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).

The Rise of Voice over IP
VoIP is a technology that enables voice calls to be transmitted over the internet rather than traditional telephone lines. It utilizes packet-switched networks, converting voice signals into data packets for transmission.

This innovation has gained traction in recent years due to several compelling reasons:

1. VoIP offers substantial cost savings. Traditional landline services require dedicated infrastructure, which can be expensive to install and maintain. In contrast, VoIP utilizes existing internet connections, eliminating the need for separate telephone lines. This cost-effectiveness is especially attractive to small businesses and startups looking to streamline their operations, and it is commonplace for large enterprises.
2. VoIP provides an extensive array of features that surpass those of POTS. Call forwarding, voicemail transcription, video conferencing, and virtual phone numbers are just a few examples of the rich feature set offered by VoIP. These features enhance productivity, collaboration, and customer service capabilities, enabling businesses to operate more efficiently and competitively.
3. VoIP systems are highly scalable, allowing businesses to easily add or remove lines as per their requirements. This flexibility eliminates the limitations imposed by traditional phone systems and accommodates the ever-changing needs of modern enterprises. As companies expand or downsize, VoIP adapts accordingly, ensuring seamless communication without unnecessary costs or complications.

More Benefits of VoIP
The advantages of VoIP extend beyond cost savings and feature-rich functionalities. One of the most significant benefits is geographical flexibility. With VoIP, users can make and receive calls from anywhere with an internet connection. This eliminates the constraints of physical location, making it easier for businesses to establish virtual offices, remote work setups, and global presence. This allows for some unique applications in the security world as well.

Additionally, VoIP integrates well with other communication channels, such as email, instant messaging, and video conferencing platforms. This integration enhances overall communication efficiency, enabling seamless transitions between different modes of interaction. Whether it is integrating voice calls into customer relationship management (CRM) software or automating call routing, VoIP empowers businesses to streamline workflows and enhance customer experiences.

Furthermore, VoIP is compatible with various devices, including smartphones, tablets, and desktop computers. Users can access their VoIP services through dedicated apps or web-based interfaces, providing a unified communication experience across multiple devices. This flexibility ensures that individuals and businesses are always connected, regardless of the device they use or their physical location.

The Challenges of VoIP and Data Communications
IP-based technology does provide some challenges in maintaining communications pathways that are highly reliable with an uptime acceptable to support critical communications. While previous communications relied largely on the provider maintaining equipment and uptime availability, IP-based technology now requires that the provider and the customer maintain their systems so that they can be relied on for critical communications.

When migrating from a POTS-based method of communicating critical voice and data to a IP-based system, adding proper battery backup, redundant communication pathways, and proper network configurations to ensure network traffic priority is critical.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in theĚýĚý´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 Rise of VoIP 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 theĚýĚý´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 theĚýĚý´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´´.

By bringing in other stakeholders in the planning process of designing and deploying security technology, a security integrator or consultant can leverage the business objectives of those stakeholders to build security technology that serves an entire organization.

When you plan for a security technology project, think outside the box and bring the as many relevant stakeholders to the table as possible. Security technology can be leveraged to maximize its organizational benefits. Sometimes it requires thinking outside the box; other times a technology’s benefit to a sister department is readily apparent. Soliciting the input of security-adjacent stakeholders will not only lead to a better overall design of the security technology, but it may also revel funding in places the integrator and security department did not expect.

As an integrator, consider the needs of these five key organizational stakeholders. If you do, you stand a much greater chance that the funding can be procured to green-light a project.

1. IT

Your security technology will most likely run on a network backbone, and for that to happen, and integrator and security end-user will need a strong working relationship with the technology stakeholder – typically, IT.

This is important because IT is responsible for the overall “data-highway” of a business. Leveraging this relationship can bring synergies to purchasing, deploying, securing and managing network technologies. Do not go it alone.

2. Facility Management

This stakeholder is running the show, literally. They need information on all aspects of the facility and its operations. Bringing this stakeholder to the table will give insight to what is important outside of the security department’s point of view. For example, managing subcontractors like snow removal, landscaping, cleaning, deliveries, and repair and maintenance services, are all critical to keeping a business running smoothly. Visitor management technologies and apps are a key area to help in this regard.  

Security-based mobile apps, in fact, are often being developed to help businesses cater to the technology needs of clients.

These mobile apps provide their client users with a host of valuable information at their fingertips – from access control to way-finding, duress and incident reporting.

It is now possible to use technology to create a mobile access control app. For example, STid, whose card readers work with any standing access control system, can embed access control credentials into a business’s mobile app.

SaaS solutions like VOLO and Everbridge can support real-time duress and incident reporting. Making the use of these technologies are low friction, promoting easier adoption into a culture.

3. Sales & Marketing

With facilities having better video surveillance coverage than ever, new Automated Intelligence (AI) platforms can leverage those video streams to provide valuable data to drive both business and security decisions.

There are plenty of video analytic-based solutions from surveillance and VMS vendors that are aimed at increasing business intelligence, from retail to industrial manufacturing.

One solution by DeepNorth () uses existing video cameras to drive data-rich reports on foot traffic to, from and within a facility. This data can be used to create heat maps of traffic patterns, dwell times, peak hours and flow rates – all of which can be used to drive the sales of tenant space, merchandise and real estate, as well as adjust staffing, space planning, and increase customer service.

Specific to marketing, many organizations – especially retail establishments – are looking to attract people to their facilities. You never know when security technology may provide a vehicle to drive traffic to a customer. Case in point: One customer I have worked with has annually nesting falcons on their rooftop. They installed a “Falcon Cam” and streamed that video to their website, along with information on the birds’ migration and conservatory efforts in the city. The addition to the website was a hit and brought much more attention and traffic to the building and to the business’s website.

4. Risk Management & Compliance

While the security function of a business typically determines the video surveillance coverage to help with investigations and situational awareness, risk and compliance can play an important role in determining the storage and archiving of video. While most security incidents are discovered and investigated within 45 days, litigation can have a much larger duration needed for discovery.

In some industry-specific cases, such as cannabis growing, archiving requirements can be multiple years. This can be very expensive if this storage requirement is fulfilled as hot storage, onsite.

Introducing this stakeholder to software solutions like the one from Tiger Technology () may make the difference. Tiger Technology’s software ties a local VMS to cloud-based hot, cold, and glacier storage solutions that can drastically reduce the overall cost of long-term video retention requirements.

5. Law Enforcement

Many cities now have formal public/private partnership programs where the business stakeholder can elect to share camera feeds with local law enforcement in real-time. This enables the police to quickly observe and respond to criminal incidents involving the business’s property. If a facility is in a high-crime area, or it is iconic or high-profile in nature this could dramatically help improve police response on or around your client’s property. Integrators and consultants should serve as a trusted resource for customers by helping them to initiate and participate in these public/private partnerships.

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

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

The post Tech Trends: Security Tech for Non-Security Stakeholders appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

I see clients who have spent millions of dollars on feature-rich security technology. The need gets established, the budget approved, and the technology installed, only to be far less effective than what was originally intended or capable. Meanwhile, those in upper management believe that their facility is more secure because of the big spend they approved.

This, unfortunately, is a common trend; they bought the Ferrari and use it like a 1974 Ford Pinto. Here are identified 5 of the most common trends I see in the field:

1. Underperforming or unused technology:I often hear: â€śIt worked well at the trade show when I saw it, but it does not work in our environment” or â€śit was never programmed” or â€śwait, our system can do that?”

The manufacturer, consultant or integrator told the customer about the wonderful things that can be done with the system and its features; however, just a year into operating the system, those features were totally forgotten, never used, or only partially implemented. Why? Sometimes they are easier to sell and harder to implement; other times, no one was watching what was owed to the customer; or worse, the customer was never trained, or the feature was more cumbersome than effective to operate so it was turned off.

2. Poor trade coordination and workmanship: This issue is most significant in access control and door hardware. Typically, doors, frames and hardware are the responsibility of the facilities department, and the electronic access control system is serviced by the security integrator. Its very common for high-traffic doors to require regular maintenance, and the frequent use of these type of doors often put hardware out of alignment, damage jambs, and other door components.

Poor coordination between the facilities department and security leaves a gap that ultimately can leave a facility unsecured.  The security vendor may discover a damaged door that does not allow it to properly secure, but the access control system is technically working. The internal coordination with a facilities department can easily get lost or assigned a lower priority to fix.

3. Insufficient video recording parameters:Shortsightedness regarding frame rate, resolution, retention, and recording methods often undercut the evidentiary requirements needed to support investigations. In order to save storage, system recording parameters are set to motion only and lower frame rate. While this does accomplish the goal of reducing the overall storage requirements of a system, it can have significant negative impact. In doing so you can lose scene continuity, where the camera’s angle to the subject does not capture motion and therefore the recording does not activate or stops early.

A perfect example of this was in a school where two individuals were in an altercation, the one subject had the other against a wall of lockers and was accused of repeatedly punching the other in the abdomen. The camera only recorded the individual running away from the lockers, because the subject’s repeated punching movements were blocked from the camera’s field of view. Had this system been set to record at a minimum of 1fps continuously and then increase the frame rate on motion, scene continuity would have been preserved.

4. No budget for service, support and end-of-life migration: This is especially prevalent in new facilities where the systems were designed and installed prior to the owners’ operations team taking possession of the facility. The cost of ongoing system maintenance, support, and replacement of equipment is not budgeted, and therefore the system falls into disrepair.

This opens the customer’s systems to security vulnerabilities where software and firmware are missing critical patches and updates, and performance criteria are not maintained. When this happens on a public project, it can become more complex – as low bid RFPs often dictate the next servicing vendor, and they typically do not have legacy knowledge of the systems.  

5. Lack of training: One of the most critical of all the trends I see is that system users have limited proficiency in the operation of the systems, especially under duress. Most users get basic “point-and-click” training where they learn general system navigation and operations. This is done when the system is turned over to the owner, but thats about the depth of the training. This is particularly true in schools where the operation of video surveillance and access control systems during emergencies default to personnel in the main office, while the regular system users like the SRO and administrators tend to the emergency. Its very rare that we find end users that have been trained to use their systems under duress in a tactical capacity.

What to do as an Industry

Each of these trends can be mitigated if integrators and consultants step in to fill the gap. We need to pursue excellence at all levels – from manufacturing and design, to installation, training and support.

We must clearly identify the performance objectives in normal and emergency conditions, and to ensure that technology meets those objectives. Further, regular training, and system audits should be conducted to ensure that both the human and technology elements of a system are conditioned to use the technology when it matters most.

In light of events such as school shootings, we must ask ourselves: What good does all of this technology do if it does not stop the threat? Do I need 240 cameras to cover a school if it does nothing to stop or reduce the impact of an assailant?

There is no room for excuses. Like an airbag in a car, smoke detector, or parachute it needs to work 100% of the time, correctly. If the systems we are providing are too complex, we need to put an emphasis on automation and support training until it becomes second nature, as well as regular testing of the systems so it will perform when needed most.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in theĚýĚý´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: Technology Fails and How to Avoid Them appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´’s approach to security design is a holistic one. ĚýIt focuses on the what and how of risk mitigation. ĚýIt is beyond a best practices approach, in that countermeasures are not selected and deployed simply because its a standard or general industry practice. ĚýInstead, a risk-based approach is used. ĚýAll aspects of a Client’s operation are considered and the risks are studied. ĚýCountermeasures 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. ĚýOur Security Consultants specialize in identifying threats and vulnerabilities against given assets, resulting in a risk profile. ĚýThis 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. ĚýThis 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. ĚýSecurity 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. ĚýOnly 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. ĚýConsider your risks, and mitigate those risks properly. ĚýSimply placing a lock on a door may not be adequate protection for your most valued assets. ĚýWhat assets do you have that require specific mitigations?

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