Avatar photo

CEO, Jackson's Fencing

Author Bio ▼

Richard Jackson is CEO of Jacksons Fencing, a key player in the perimeter security / access control sector. Jacksons has built its 65-year heritage on the design, manufacture and supply of high quality physical security solutions. Richard, as the son of the original founder of the business, has in excess of 40 years industry experience and was personally responsible for masterminding the company’s entry into the steel security product market. Richard is a recognised industry spokesperson on all aspects of physical security and has regularly undertaken speaker engagements, which include presentations at the Counter Terror Expo and IFSEC. As a business, Jacksons has an established track record in the delivery of physical security solutions specifically developed for high security applications, and Richard has been heavily involved in the company’s development of products which have secured CPNI Approved and Secured by Design accreditation. In 2000, Richard set up a new Export division to enable the company to trade on an international basis. Most recently, Richard has been the pioneering force behind the creation of the Gate Safe campaign, which was founded in direct response to the death of two children in separate automated gate accidents in 2010. Today Gate Safe is a charity in its own right, supported by a number of leading industry associations including RoSPA, ECA (Electrical Contractors’ Association), SAFed (Safety Assessment Federation, Secured by Design, ECS (Electrotechnical Certification Scheme) and School Safety MARK.
April 22, 2014

Sign up to free email newsletters

Download

Whitepaper: Multi-residential access management – The move to digital

Big Companies Neglect Physical Security and Over-Rely on Surveillance

barbican-defender-capital-properties-amended-copy[1]CCTV was first launched in 1942, when Siemens AG installed a system to observe the launch of V-2 rockets (the world’s first long-range missile), although the first commercial closed circuit television system became available in the US in 1949.

Since its original roll-out, the technology has advanced and in 2013, The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimated that there were up to 5.9 million closed circuit television cameras in the country, including 750,000 in sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals and care homes.

The fact that CCTV schemes offer an invaluable source of crime detection and evidence for the police cannot be disputed (in 2009 95% of Scotland Yard murder cases used CCTV footage as evidence), but herein lies the crux of the argument to discourage an over-reliance on CCTV as the central pillar to site security.

So, yes, CCTV delivers an effective means of identifying who has entered a site, even when they entered the site or perhaps initiating an alert that the site is under threat. But the reality is, that all of these benefits do nothing to actually prevent physical access to the site.

Prevention

In essence, while surveillance has no doubt increased the quality and quantity of intelligence gathering, no CCTV camera is capable of stopping a person or vehicle from entering or leaving a site. Once on site, the damage is done and whilst CCTV may help in proving culpability, it does little to prevent the actual occurrence of the crime in the first place.

In addition, cameras are easy to detect and as such can often be physically removed or even shot down by an air rifle. The obvious siting of the cameras also makes it relatively easy for an unwelcome intruder to conceal their identity simply by covering up with a hoodie.

Add to this the fact that all too often, CCTV cameras may not be operating at 100% efficiency due to any number of reasons (wear and tear, failure to maintain the system, car headlights blinding the cameras, drop in signal to the cameras etc) and the logic for focusing on this form of security is even more flawed. In practice, the only time that you are likely to realize that the CCTV is not working properly is when an incident has taken place.

In sharp contrast to this, physical protection in the guise of perimeter security (fencing, security toppings, PIDS and Vehicle Security barriers including street furniture with a security functionality) and effective access control (automated gates, bollards / traffic calming & traffic management measures and turnstiles) must surely represent the most critical and fundamental response to reducing the risk of a security breach by forced entry.

An imposing perimeter that boasts anti-climb/anti-scale properties and a tough resistance to powered tools not only serves as a strong outer ring of protection that will deter and most definitely delay the majority of intruders and vehicles, it will also negate the opportunity to view any sensitive assets kept on site.

Adopting the appropriate access control protocols will further hinder any opportunity to penetrate the physical line of defence and can also lead to the potential legal entrapment of individuals or vehicles.

The increasingly sophisticated and varied security challenges of the 21st century dictate the need for a robust physical defence strategy which is designed into the security architecture of the site at the earliest planning stage. Highly sensitive sites should consider the latest government approved physical security products that have undergone stringent testing to demonstrate their ability to counteract even the most aggressive attacks.

 

Education

Ultimately, if a choice has to be made between CCTV and physical security, the latter has to take precedence and probably represents around the same investment as CCTV. Sadly, all too often companies still appear to be preoccupied with catching the intruder rather than preventing their arrival. Perhaps further education is required to draw attention to the great advances that have been made in physical security to drive home the undeniable value of installing ‘more than just a fence’.

In summary, whilst physical security should always remain king, a combination of physical protection measures which work in tandem with an efficient CCTV system reflects the solution of choice.

EBOOK: Lessons from IFSEC 2023 – Big Tech, Martyn’s Law and Drone Threats

Read IFSEC Insider’s exclusive IFSEC eBook and explore the key takeaways from the 2023 show!

Navigate the impact of Big Tech on access control, gain insights from Omdia’s analysts on video surveillance trends, and explore sessions covering topics like futureproofing CCTV networks, addressing the rising drone threat, and the crucial role of user proficiency in security technology.

There's also an exclusive interview with Figen Murray, the driver behind Martyn's Law legislation.

 

IFSEC-Ebook-FrontCover-23
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Santruz
Santruz
April 25, 2014 5:01 pm

Your article touches on issues we have been planning to hold a seminar on ,for corporate executives, MDs, CEOs, board memebrs etc. The idea was to try and educate them on global physical security trends, provide a comparison of where the industry has reached globally and where Zimbabwe and Africa is lagging behind. The feeling is that if this group of decision makers get to appreciate the trends ,they would be able to enforce and invest in standardized and approved security systems. I would then like to have your contacts so we can discuss tis seminar further, with the view that… Read more »

Matter333
Matter333
July 22, 2015 10:39 am

Santruz Where can Africans find effective security systems?