CONTROL RISK GROUP (CRG) HAS RELEASED RISK MAP ON BUSINESS WORLDWIDE

Of increasing concern to business is likely to be the enhanced risk of kidnap faced by employees in a growing number of regions. “Allowing for differences of motivation and method, kidnap has become much more of a global issue and new hotspots are likely to emerge in 2009,” says Jonathan Wood, a Control Risks analyst. “It has never been more important for business to understand the dynamics underlying security issues in each country of operation.”Kidnapping for ransom has become a global phenomenon and increasingly groups with a political agenda will use kidnapping as a fund-raising tool.Although the main driver in the growth of kidnap will remain its adoption by militant groups, the number of piracy incidents involving kidnap is surging – and will continue to do so in 2009.CRG speaks of a 'formidable backdrop of unpredictability', warning that security flashpoints will intensify, and business will face a challenging landscape of political risk and complex investment opportunities. Also predicted - Global economic contagion as hope is abandoned that growth in emerging markets would decouplefrom mature industrialised countries.2009 will be a post-surplus world in which scarcity of key resources increasingly drives political decision-making and poses significant challenges for business.While 2009 is unlikely to witness ‘resource wars’, scarcity will have a profound impact on security, operating and regulatory conditions. US foreign policy interests are not expected to change dramatically under President Obama, although he is more likely to work through international bodies than his predecessor, and his major priorities will remain preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. The emphasis in the ‘war on terror’ will shift further towards Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas.If the US economy does not improve by the second half of the year Obama will have to resist pressure for protectionism and financial over-regulation.Terrorist groups may test the new president’s resolve.“In 2009, risk will become still more significant as business is forced to negotiate an increasingly difficult and uncertain landscape”, says Control Risks Research Director, Adam Strangfeld. “It is clear from our analysis that the financial crisis is worldwide – the emerging markets as well as more mature economies are not immune.“But not all countries will have the same degree of exposure; and differentiating clearly between markets will become a critical factor in making successful investments; opportunities will remain to those who put a premium on careful pre-investmentplanning.“In many parts of the world, scarcity of resources is a mounting problem that cannot be confined by national boundaries or even regions. In 2009, scarcity will represent a strategic challenge for business that only firstclass intelligence can meet.”RatingsCountries with areas at EXTREME security risk [* indicates entire country rated at extreme]:Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo (DRC), Iraq, Somalia, Sri Lanka (north and north east), Sudan (Dafur).Countries with areas at HIGH security risk (by region) [* indicates entire country rated at high]:AFRICA: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad*, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Niger,Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe*AMERICAS: Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti*, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, VenezuelaASIA: Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), East Timor*, India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea*, Philippines,ThailandEUROPE: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, UzbekistanMIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA: Algeria, Palestinian Territories*, Saudi Arabia*, Turkey, Yemen*Countries with areas at MEDIUM security risk (by region) [* indicates entire country rated at medium]:AFRICA: Angola, Benin; Burkina Faso*, Comoros*, Congo, Djibouti*, Ghana, Guinea (Conakry)*, Guinea-Bissau*, Lesotho*, Madagascar*, Mozambique*, São Tomé & Príncipe*, Sierra Leone*, Senegal, South Africa,Swaziland*, Tanzania, Togo*, ZambiaAMERICAS: Argentina, Bolivia*, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador*, Guyana*, Honduras*, Jamaica*,Mexico*, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago, United StatesASIA: Cambodia*, China, Fiji*, Laos*, Mongolia*, Nepal*, Solomon Islands*, Tonga*EUROPE: Albania; France; Greece; Italy; Kazakhstan*; Macedonia*; Moldova, Serbia, Spain, Turkmenistan*MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA: Egypt*, Iran*, Israel*, Jordan, Lebanon*, Morocco, Syria.UK ratingThe UK is rated at low for political and security risk, on a scale rising from insignificant to low to medium to high and extreme. Low political risk is defined as - Business can operate with few problems. Political institutions are stable but there is some possibility of negative policy change. Legal guarantees are strong but business may face some regulatory or judicial insecurity. Non-state actors may occasionally hamper operations.And low security risk is defined as - Assets are generally secure and the authorities provide adequate security. Companies and personnel face only infrequent exposure to violence from terrorists or criminals; companies are unlikely to be systematically targeted for asset theft.Extreme is defined as risks being so bad that conditions are hostile, even untenable for businesses.
Source: http://www.crg.com

LONDON 2012: SECURITY BOOM OR BUST?

The success of the Olympic Games in China has set a high benchmark. With the London 2012 Games next in line, we must swiftly ask ourselves: ‘Is Britain ready for the greatest show on earth’?

By Wilson Chowdhry

When I pose that particular question, I’m at the same time suggesting that the emphasis needs to focus on the arrangements for security guarding.
London is one of the most high profile cities of the modern world, and one of the most visited. The influx of visitors the Olympic games will entice to our cramped Capital is in excess of £10,000,000 worth of ‘ticketed’ spectators, 16,000 athletes for the full Olympics, 4,500 athletes for the Paralympic Games and 3,000 officials. This will place significant burdens on our Capital’s resources – already, a budget of £692 million has been earmarked for Games-related transportation.
Crammed trains and buses – with or without air conditioning – are hot spots for antisocial behaviour. Many visitors to London at this time will be expecting to partake in all night revelry. It’s essential that the transport network tackles this concern. Besides, tightly-packed networks are a ‘honey pot’ for opportunist pickpockets.
The proposed development of 5,400 parking spaces at the Stratford City development, and an additional 2,500 at the main Olympic site, will require significant ‘policing’. Security patrols will be required, no doubt, mirroring recent evidence that vehicle crime has increased across the whole of London.
Parking management organisations will no doubt be inundated with work. During the Games themselves, event stewarding and event security teams will be working in tandem to ensure maximum safety within the arenas. In addition, a large number of door supervision teams will be securing the evening and daytime entertainment venues such as cinemas, museums, restaurants and licensing venues, clubs, pubs and hotels that will cater for the thrill-craving masses visiting from abroad and across Britain.
Specific crime prevention policies
Have these organisations specifically been advised on the need for a crime prevention or reduction policy? Naivety is the biggest threat, frankly, and with limited information cascading to these organisations – many of whom cannot cope with the existing binge drinking and drug-taking culture – are we setting ourselves up for a pretty big fall?
England has battled hard to remove the stain of hooliganism, and although it’s traditionally associated with football and primarily with local club support and rivalry (in particular when teams play abroad), the fact remains that it blights many sports. The Olympics brings together people from 150 participating countries with differing cultures, beliefs and customs. That being the case, security simply has to be high on the agenda.
The sheer size and scale of this security ‘need’ is going to be like nothing ever seen before in England, let alone London. In 1966, when England (thanks largely to West Ham United’s Bobby Moore, Martin Peters and hat-trick hero Geoff Hurst) challenged for (and won) the World Cup, matches were spread over a much wider area than a relatively small enclave like East London.
With ‘the world’s eyes’ spectating on the event via media or actual physical presence, and the constant threat of global terrorism in the background, the demand for security will be even more significant. You may find unconventional increases in security at tube and rail stations, within trains themselves and a potential doubling of protection efforts at airports, ferry ports and large commercial and retail outlets in the Capital.
I say unconventional not because it’s unusual to have security at these locations, but rather to stress my perception that unprecedented levels of manpower will be deployed to foster the perception of a safer London. Only recently, the debacle at the Taj Mahal Hotel and Trident Hotel in India demonstrated that sporting events attract lots of attention. Not all of it is positive, and the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in India are highlighting the need for effective security at London 2012.
The threat is very real... and persistent
Of course, Britain has had its fair share of terrorist incidents (involving British-born militants) in recent times, with 7/7, the attempted bombings in its aftermath and the Glasgow Airport attack still engraved in the minds of the public.
The Greek authorities had spent 900,000 Euros – the equivalent of £780 million – on security for the 2004 Games, and we remember the incidents in Istanbul and Madrid. Worse still, in 1972 the Munich massacre occurred when militant Palestinians associated with the rebel group Black September slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes. Even to a morbid thinker, an incident at the 2012 Games would cause global shockwaves. It should be apparent to all that, probably this very minute, there are heinous minds conspiring towards devastation vis-à-vis 2012.
I fear that lack of adequate resource planning and early risk assessment will lead to supply shortages of security personnel and an increased threat. Any security shortcomings are likely to beget an increased incident, as most petty crime is opportunistic and even well-planned crimes require lapses in security.
Already, the London International Olympic Committee has increased the proposed security budget by £238 million on top of the £600 million or so already earmarked. This is, of course, designed to cover physical, electronic and manpower provision. However, there’s still no obvious dialogue occurring between industry bodies such as the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the British Security Industry Association and the International Olympic Committee for London. ‘Guesstimates’ without consultation on a wider spectrum will lead to frailty in the planning process, culminating in miscalculation and adversity.
In a recent article published in the print version of Security Management Today, I read an article by Tom James (entitled ‘Up for the Cup’) about the joint agency approach and research fieldwork undertaken at the 2008 Ryder Cup in America by the security organisers for the 2010 event being held in Wales. They have highlighted the need for improved communication and better use of CCTV as major areas. With the expected large-scale security deployment and the need for good visual and audio communication and awareness, I do hope that both these aspects are thoroughly examined in respect of the 2012 Olympics.
ACS: the preferential service
At this juncture, while the potential security threat is high on the agenda, a great opportunity exists for the SIA as Regulator to promote the elitist and preferential service provided by its Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)-registered companies. A positive move would be to engage in dialogue with the 2012 Committee and broach the subject, detailing to all relevant parties that security – whether physical, electronic or human in nature – can be of an exceptional standard and is obtainable.
We need to inform potential security purchasers that they could benefit substantially by procuring services via the ACS list of companies. Why not go further still and recommend that ACS status become a prerequisite for the tendering process for any security contract associated with the Olympic Programme, and that such a stipulation should crossover all aspects of the project whether concerning construction, event or exit stage?
My reasons for suggesting this are due to the dire economic climate in which we find ourselves, and the long-lasting and, sadly, still growing tendency for security consumers to opt for competitive prices over best value service. This is creating a rise in the rogue firms providing unlicensed officers. I’ve also heard of very shady training practices involving a local training academy that is completing exam papers for students. Worse still, an allegedly SIA licensed applicant arrived at my offices recently in response to a recruitment advertisement that he clearly could not have read, evidenced by his inability to speak more than four words - Hello, Bye, Yes and No – of the Queen’s English.
I’m not suggesting that all ACS-registered companies are impeccable, but that benchmark does represent the highest standard of service in our industry and offers a flexible enough framework for a wide enough number of organisations to attain the standard. Unlicensed officers at the Olympics would pose an extremely dangerous threat. I do hope the SIA addresses this matter with the impetus it genuinely deserves.
Increased LDN provision from the Regulator?
I’m both concerned and flabbergasted that, thus far, no-one in the industry – most notably the Regulator – has broached the subject of a temporary license, or indeed increased Licence Dispensation Notice (LDN) provision, for the period of the Olympic Games themselves, not to say the build-up and deconstruction phases.
When the security contracts for the Olympics begin to disseminate, many companies will need to recruit quickly and for the short term. For the event period, how might companies be expected to pay the full three-year licence fee for a large-scale, short term resource that may only be required for that three-week period of the event?
Furthermore, with the nature of those external to our industry to de-prioritise security until the last moment possible, is it not prudent for the SIA to roster temporary increases to the administration staff responsible for authorising licenses? In tandem with that, a concerted effort to highlight the need for early security planning among the 2012 management team and their associates and suppliers would seem to be the way forward.
Currently, the SIA offers a 15% LDN provision with a potential increase option for special circumstance. I put it to the Regulator that it may wish to consider increasing the potential for LDN to at least a 30% ratio during the six months prior period and for one month after the Olympic events have ended.
Licence applications aplenty
Finally, the Regulator began the process of licensing static and patrol officers in 2006, and door supervisors in 2005. It will surely find that it’s overwhelmed with new license applications in the run-up to the Olympics. Perhaps now is a good time to consider potential increases in the licence application approval staffing numbers and resources such that it can cope with a potential logistical nightmare.
Like most Londoners, I’m tremendously excited by the prospect of the Olympic Games coming to town, and believe that the event might trigger an economic upturn. I would love to hear post-event comments that match those emanating from the recent Beijing Games thanks to its evidently supreme performance and management.
A safe Olympic Games for all
However, I foresee disaster for our country’s image and reputation if we do not take the issue of security seriously enough.
If our athletes perform half as well as they did in Beijing we would have had a great result, but matters are gearing up for an even better climax given home advantage.
Here’s to a safe and secure Olympic Games, then, in which athletes from all over the world can safely display the depth of their sporting talents, and spectators can watch them in absolute safety and security.

Wilson Chowdhry is managing director of AA Security

SCHOOL VIOLENCE SPURS SECOND INVESTIGATION

By Alan Hyder

A “shocking level of violence” against teachers is a factor that has spurred a company into undertaking a major research programme into schools security.
Following research last year, integrated security specialist TAC is carrying out its second major project on the state of security in Britain’s schools.
Says strategic solutions director Richard Strode: “What we found was a shocking level of violence against teachers which is simply not factored for in school security strategies.
“We are now undertaking this second piece of research so that we can fully understand the concerns of parents and guardians.”
In its research in 2007, TAC – which also specialises in building automation - investigated the type of security concerns faced by teachers.
Strode says the new research will “help create a more complete understanding of the challenges facing schools and therefore help the industry identify the best security solutions to make them safer for both staff and pupils”.
Many schools did not have the expertise to know how to make their ideals become a reality, said Strode.
“That is a responsibility which lies with the security industry.”
The TAC School Security Report – A Parents View will be launched in Spring 2009 along with a series of recommendations for the security industry to help make educational environments safer.
Research will be conducted by Perpetuity Research – a spin off of the University of Leicester.

G4S TO TRAIN LOCALS AS OLYMPIC PARK SECURITY GUARDS

By Anthony Hildebrand

The Olympic Delivery Authority says recently appointed security guarding contractor G4S Security Services UK will work with the ODA and five host Boroughs to help local residents access the new jobs created by plans to increase the security of the Olympic Park.
As part of a strategy to enhance the security and safety of the Olympic Park site as work accelerates, G4S Security Services UK has been appointed to provide security guarding. The company aims to train and employ local residents to help it fulfil the contract, which runs up to the start of the 2012 Games, and to provide long term career opportunities after 2012.
All security guarding opportunities will be advertised in the local media around the Olympic Park and through the local Job Centre plus network and host borough job brokerage services. All Olympic Park security guards will then be trained to achieve Security Industry Authority accreditation and the Construction Skills Certification as well as further specialised security training.
The ODA says the new security guarding service will help ensure that the Olympic Park is safe and secure for the workforce and local people from this autumn as construction work increases on the Olympic Stadium, Aquatics Centre, Olympic Village and infrastructure projects. Over 2500 workers are on site at present, building to 4000 at the end of the year.
Additional measuresFurther measures to increase the security and safety of the Olympic Park, which will be phased in during the course of this year, include the replacement of the temporary hoardings that currently surround the Olympic Park with a more substantial perimeter fence starting later this year; and procurement is underway of both a vehicle and people screening contractor, access control systems and a package of perimeter security systems and functions.
ODA Chief Executive David Higgins said: “As we enter the Big Build phase it is essential that we phase in robust and effective plans to ensure the security and safety of both the Olympic Park workforce – which will number around 9,000 at peak – and the surrounding communities.
“A professional and appropriate security service is a crucial component of these plans but will also contribute to the London 2012 legacy by creating opportunities for local people to gain training, jobs and long term career development.”
More appointmentsThe ODA hopes to appoint an access control systems contractor by the autumn with the systems up and running by early 2009, a vehicle and people screening contractor next year ready to start work on site, and a provider of perimeter security systems and functions by early 2009.
During the cleaning and clearing of the Olympic Park an interim security guarding service has been provided by contractors and overseen by the ODA.

HOW DO OUTDOOR EVENTS SECURE THEMSELVES?

Securing Glasto, 09/09/2008

What can make securing a music festival quite galling for a security person trying to do a job may be the rebellious attitude of some of the musicians. For instance veteran rocker Iggy Pop sang 'No Fun' into the face of one steward, and tried to crowd-surf at Isle of Wight pop festival in the summer.Can they keep within the Private Security Industry Act regarding contract security officers, and protect themselves and the thousands of customers from threats from theft to ticket-touting to drug dealing and (as has harmed Glastonbury before) mass intrusion by people without tickets breaching the perimeter?! Let alone safeguarding people out to have a good time who may resent any staff trying to enforce rules against crowd surfers or about drinking or camp-fires or VIP-access only areas. There’s a link here with the regulator because SIA director Andy Drane, as a former Avon and Somerset assistant chief constable, took charge of policing a Glastonbury among other things for the force. At arguably the biggest and most famous open-air summer event, Glastonbury, the answer seems to have been a careful division of (SIA-licensable) security activities and other actions that stewards can do without needing security skills. GFL (Glastonbury Festivals Limited) has hundreds of volunteer stewards - provided for years by charity Oxfam, wearing flourescent bibs - to ‘support’ the security set-up. According to GFL, the stewarding duties include: Crowd management in venues Parking and marshalling traffic Stewarding entrances and exits Fire stewarding in venues Campsite stewarding operating security lock-ups staffing information points and generally assisting members of the public. The stewards when they are not working a shift can enjoy the rest of the festival for free, and hence attracts students. Specialist security staff do all what GFL term the higher-risk activities, such as dealing with confrontation, village security - that is, the temporary home for the tens of thousands of tented visitors - and staffing the pits of the main stages. GFL adds: “One area where it is specifically important to clarify the respective roles of security and stewards is at the gates. The role of the Glastonbury gate stewards includes: checking for valid tickets and passes; providing directions as requested by the public; operating the pass-out system Carrying out vehicle accreditation Checking for valid vehicle passes Providing information – such as camping availability Directing traffic on site Directing public, both to the gates and from the Bus Station The role of the contract security companies, working on gates, may include some aspects of the above, but is more likely to include: protecting gate staff and securing pass-out tickets (which might be a source of conflict and / or people trying to get in without paying); dealing with any confrontation; searching vehicles and seizing any contraband goods; liaising with other security personnel over ticket touts and organised crime. Summer 2008 was the first full season for the deployment of digital wireless equipment for events from CCTV installer Spindlewood.The Wakefield-based company was awarded the 14 camera system by Live Nation for the Download Festival at Donnington, after we had demonstrated how our new technology, with USP battery backup, could overcome the problems of terrain, interruption of power supply and wireless interference from the East Midlands Airport.The company was asked to provide the same coverage in Hyde Park for the O2 Wireless Festival and the Mandela Birthday Concert. Donnington Park itself then contracted the firm to cover their Motor Cycle Grand Prix.At both Events at Donnington and Hyde Park, deployed was a body mounted digital video system, the Ranger, to provide a roving and immediately available unit to attend on site for transmissions back to the operations centre. Called to over 50 incidents, it tracked and led to the arrest of drug dealers and pick-pockets, aided immediate interventions in crowd control and helped on the spot decisions for medical treatments for cases ranging from exhaustion to over-indulgence. Recently Spindlewood won contracts at two more hotels in the Holiday Inn Express chain, at Watford and Burnley. Both hotels require a 12 camera system integrated with intruder and panic alarms linked to local police. And the new Hard Days Night Hotel in Liverpool has a 25 WDR Vista Mini dome camera system installed by Spindlewood. A further five vandal resistant Vista domes have been installed externally for coverage access points to the hotel. Footage is fed back to the security manager’s office where it can be viewed on two Vista monitors and two 16 way DVRs.

ATTACKS CONTINUE ON RETAILS STORES

Criminals exploit wireless vulnerabilities, social engineering to collect large volumes of customer data

By Tim WilsonSite Editor, Dark Reading

Attacks on local retail establishments continue to net criminals large volumes of personal data, despite the recent arrest and indictment of a large group of criminals using the same attack vector.
Authorities late last week acknowledged that a ring of cyber-thieves has stolen tens of thousands of credit card numbers from Louisiana and Mississippi restaurants this year. One bank alone says it has lost more than $1 million as a result of the attacks, according to news reports about the identity thefts.
And across the pond in Ireland, data thieves masquerading as bank technicians have fooled store owners into giving them access to credit card terminals and managed to download the details of over 20,000 credit and debit cards, according to an Irish news outlet.
The attacks come on the heels of a huge arrest and indictment made two weeks ago, when 11 perpetrators allegedly involved in the hacking of nine major U.S. retailers, and the theft and sale of more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers were charged with engineering the largest hacking and identity theft conspiracy ever prosecuted in the U.S. (See Feds Arrest Hackers of TJX, Other Retailers in Huge Conspiracy Bust.)
That case linked several high-profile data breaches of the last two years -- including TJX Companies, BJ's Wholesale Club, Barnes & Noble, and Dave & Buster's -- to a single group of conspirators. But apparently, it didn't break all of the rings of thieves who might use vulnerabilities in local retail wireless systems to crack credit card information.
The U.S. restaurants began reporting the thefts beginning in March in Baton Rouge, La. followed by similar cases in Flowood, Lafayette, Lake Charles, and West Monroe, Miss. The hackers stole credit and debit card numbers from 16 restaurants' computer systems, then sought to sell them for anywhere between $1 and $100 each, according to special agent Sean Connor of the U.S. Secret Service.
Law enforcement agencies in Louisiana and Mississippi did not give details on the methods used by the criminals, but they did say they believe that the thefts are connected and multiple thieves are likely working together. Experts speculate that the attackers are using a technique similar to the one used at TJX, in which criminals "eavesdrop" on in-store wireless systems and gain access to the database of customer and credit card data.
In Ireland, attackers are taking advantage of weaknesses in in-store security as well, but using a more brazen attack. The Irish Payment Services Organisation has warned that individuals pretending to be from Irish banks convinced shop owners that they were carrying out maintenance on point-of-sale systems on behalf of the banks. This enabled them to plug in wireless devices that pushed the data to the Internet, where the card numbers could be used overseas.
The scam has forced Irish banks to restrict cash withdrawals to about $200 a day for cardholders traveling outside the country. Law enforcement officials say they have retrieved closed-circuit TV footage of the gang in action.
The new attacks show that despite the blockbuster arrest, retail establishments are still being raided for large volumes of personal data. The PCI Standards Security Council issued further revisions to retail standards for handling credit card data earlier today. (See PCI SSC Announces Changes to PCI DSS Specs.)

ANALISIS DE VIDEO: ENTRE LA EVIDENCIA E LA PRECISION

por Frans Kemper

Hay mucho qué decir acerca de las nuevas tecnologías y tendencias en CCTV. El mercado se está moviendo a una velocidad evidentemente rápida y difícil de mantener. Obviamente, la entrada de la trasmisión IP cambió el panorama de la industria y continuará haciéndolo por algún tiempo.
El CCTV es frecuentemente el sistema de seguridad dominante debido al hecho de que es el único utilizado proactivamente por los operadores. Los otros son reactivos por naturaleza, generalmente sin requerir acción del operador hasta que algo ocurre. Pero en realidad ¿qué puede un operador hacer?
Es normal esperar que un operador monitoree todas las cámaras en un turno de 8 a 12 horas. Pero ASIS International estableció que un ser humano puede observar eficazmente de 9 a 12 cámaras por cerca de 15 minutos.
Es claramente imposible para un oficial de seguridad mantener una supervisión efectiva del ambiente desplegado en los monitores sin la asistencia de tecnología para filtrar información que no es de interés.
Datos con valor
Una cosa es tener más y más datos de video disponibles pero otra muy diferente optimizarlos para proporcionar el mejor nivel de seguridad. Después de todo, la mayoría de secuencias de video serán solo un mundo de datos guardados sin ninguna consecuencia.
Aquí es donde el análisis de video entra en juego. No hace mucho tiempo el análisis de video era solo visto en lugares de mucha seguridad como instalaciones de defensa y aeropuertos.
Recientemente la tecnología ha entrado en el curso dominante y en algunos lugares sorprendentes también.Las soluciones de análisis de video más comunes hoy son los sistemas de Lectura Automática de Números de Placa, con muchas instalaciones alrededor del mundo. Son usadas en aplicaciones de control de acceso, peajes en autopistas y control de velocidad, adicionalmente a las aplicaciones de justicia criminalística y policial.
Otras aplicaciones para el análisis de video en el mercado de sistemas de tráfico inteligente incluyen encuestas de tráfico, verificación de problemas en túneles y control de vehículos que paran a un lado del camino.
Más allá del uso comercial
La administración de dos edificios de apartamentos residenciales en Japón llevó este sistema a una etapa superior al implementar una solución de video inteligente para reducir el crimen.
En una novedosa aplicación del análisis de video, las imágenes de personas sospechosas son proyectadas en una pantalla grande en las paredes externas de los edificios, a la vista púbica de la gente en las calles.
Utilizando aplicaciones con capacidades de rastreo automático y autónomo Pan Tilt Zoom, el sistema proporciona un rastreo auto dirigido guiado por visión para mantener el objetivo en movimiento en foco permanente, ofreciendo numerosas posibilidades de identificación y recolección de información.
La solución controlada remotamente ha reducido sustancialmente los costos para el complejo residencial eliminando la necesidad de tener oficiales de seguridad todo el tiempo monitoreando constantemente las imágenes de video.
Desde que el proyecto fue implementado, ningún crimen ha sido reportado. En otro ejemplo, una granja chilena de salmones aplicó satisfactoriamente el análisis de video inteligente para combatir el robo de salmón y de los huevos de salmón.
La primera generación de soluciones de análisis de video analizaba la video vigilancia en tiempo real, identificando potenciales amenazas a la seguridad mientras se desarrollaban, permitiendo responder inmediatamente y previniendo fallas serias en la seguridad. Y como el análisis de video está basado en tecnología digital, la video vigilancia migró del mundo análogo del CCTV al ambiente digital en red basado en IP.
Necesidades satisfechas
Actualmente, el análisis de video está yendo más allá de la seguridad hacia el mundo de la inteligencia de negocios, produciendo cantidades sin precedentes de información valiosa.
Los usuarios que buscan sistemas de seguridad de análisis de video descubrieron rápidamente que estos sistemas también pueden proporcionar inteligencia de video relacionada con procesos de negocios, de la misma manera eficiente y precisa.
Y al hacerlo, han entregado sistemas que efectivamente sirven un doble propósito al poder también monitorear procesos de negocios. (Para mayor referencia lea la primera edición de Zona de Seguridad:http://www.alas-la.org/zonadeseguridad/_Edicion01/tendencias
Entender las necesidades específicas en seguridad es fundamental (como siempre) para determinar cuál es el paquete de análisis de video adecuado para una organización y buscar el sistema que mejor responda a sus necesidades.
El análisis de video cubre un amplio territorio: seguridad perimetral, detección de intrusión, vandalismo y grafitis, seguridad personal, seguridad de edificios, detección de objetos movidos o robados, detección de equipaje o paquetes sin atender, vehículos en la vía, vehículos que siguen otros muy de cerca, la dinámica de las multitudes, etc. Y la lista sigue creciendo.
Pero también hay que estar consientes de que mientras los sistemas actuales de análisis de video son de lejos mucho más precisos que sus predecesores, esta precisión demanda un escrutinio detallado.
Cada proveedor de análisis de video le dirá que su sistema “tiene la más alta precisión en la industria, con una tasa de precisión de más del 95% en probabilidad de detección (POD) y unas tasas extremadamente bajas de falsas alarmas”.
¿Le suena familiar? La pregunta aquí es bajo qué condiciones fueron tomadas esas medidas y si fue en un ambiente cerrado, con iluminación controlada y sin influencia del clima. ¿O si fue en exteriores durante un amanecer o en un día lluvioso o soleado?Suena como el uso de gasolina en un folleto, el cual yo personalmente nunca soy capaz de alcanzar.

THE NOT-SO-BEAUTIFUL GAME

By Brian Sims
Security Management Today’s Editor Brian Sims tackles the pressing issues of the day. This time around, the focus is on the policing and Government regulation of Premier League football grounds and stewarding and, once again, knife crime…
With the Barclays Premier League season’s big kick-off just days away now, the Association of Chief Police Officers has delivered a judicious boot of its own, calling on the 20 clubs involved to pay all the costs of policing games.
At the moment, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal and West Ham United et al only have to render the costs incurred for policing inside their grounds on matchdays (or on adjacent land that’s their property by law). Any other policing costs are left to be funded from police budgets. That’ll be the same police budgets already stretched to breaking point, one presumes. In real terms, this means local communities are subsidising the clubs.
Assistant chief constable Stephen Thomas of the British Transport Police serves as the ACPO ‘lead’ on policing football. Thomas states: “The funds we receive to police our various jurisdictional areas across the country are provided by Government and local residents through their Council Tax. If we have to take officers away from community policing to look after football, we are not able to recover the costs of doing so. That means our normal policing budget is being used for that purpose. In turn, we then have to provide a lesser service to the rest of the community.”
A Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the BBC’s Radio 5 Live to the police service has shown that the amounts paid for policing by Premier League clubs vary. Owned by the controversial billionaire Roman Abramovich, Chelsea allegedly pay less than half of the cost of policing their matches at Stamford Bridge. The same applies to West Ham United. Bear in mind that these are two clubs with pockets of ‘fans’ who have enjoyed a less-than-savoury reputation for decent behaviour towards opposing teams' supporters.
To my great surprise [says Editor with tongue firmly lodged in cheek], it emerges that the Premier League is less than happy with Thomas' comments. They say that the clubs already contribute £700 million to HM Treasury every year by way of taxation. “And don’t forget the tax taken from the 13 million fans who attend Premiership matches during the course of a season,” retorts Dan Johnson, head of communications at the Premier League.
Take, take, take
Excuse me? If anyone is ‘taking’ from the fans it’s the clubs, Mr Johnson. They charge extortionate amounts of money for tickets and merchandise to the extent that they’ve all but priced out the average family and working man from ‘paying homage’ more than once or twice a season. The cost of food and drink at the concession stands is disgustingly high, with the quality of what’s on offer often little better than pigswill.
The clubs have no option but to charge so much money for everything ‘on site’ for one simple reason. They pay ludicrously high wages to players who, frankly, I wouldn’t cross the road to watch because they are, at best, average. Suffice to say that if, on a regular basis, you or I performed in our own professions as badly as they do on so many Saturday afternoons we wouldn’t last five minutes. In the cosseted, surreal world of the Barclays Premier League, though, you can be jailed for beating people up, go out on regular drinking benders, smoke like a chimney, treat women with total disrespect and still be welcomed by your club with open arms.
What a great advert for the once-coveted societal values of decency, respect and morals.
Mr Johnson continues: “They [the clubs] have invested heavily in all-seater stadiums, CCTV and stewarding.” So they damn well should. If they’re going to fleece us, the least we should be able to expect is that they protect us all while they’re doing so.
“As a result, the numbers of police required to ensure public safety, and therefore the cost, has reduced over the past 15 years,” concludes Johnson. “We are always happy to discuss how it might be possible to further reduce costs, or indeed how football could help the police tackle youth crime, but we fail to see why fans should pay twice for policing.”
Well I fail to see why I should have to pay 50 quid to watch a match live, Mr Johnson, or fork out £60 for a new shirt every season when they’re manufactured in some Far Eastern sweat shop for around a tenner just to serve as billboards for ‘they who must be obeyed’ (ie the club sponsor). In fact, I’m no longer going to as, after 18 years, I’ve decided to give up my Season Ticket at Upton Park.
What we are talking about is a monopoly situation of the worst kind. The club bosses know it, and they prey on it.
I also fail to see why footballers should be paid more in a week than some people earn in years. It’s a disgrace. If the clubs can afford to do that then they can damn well afford to pay for whatever policing it takes to maintain law and order in and around their stadiums. As far as I’m concerned, they should do so out of a Duty of Care to the paying public (who keep them alive) and the local citizens who live nearby.
Politicians may have the casting vote
The bloated Premier League has become far too big for its own boots, and needs taking down a peg or two. In combination with Sky TV, this organisation has created havoc for police forces and fans alike, continually switching matches to suit armchair supporters rather than the genuine followers of the game who still wish to attend despite the horrendous price of doing so.
ACPO has now informed the Home Office that it would like to see a change in the law to allow it to charge clubs and other money-making events for the full costs of policing their events. Indeed, that very proposal has been included in its submission to the Government’s Green Paper on the future of policing.
Unfortunately, this means that the politicians may end up playing arbiter over the wishes of the Premier League and those of the police. No prizes for guessing who’ll end up with the wooden spoon in that particular contest.
...and what about the licensing situation?
Another hugely important issue that seems to have been buried with time is the football authorities’ continuing exemption from Security Industry Authority licensing for in-house stewards.
“They can damn well afford to pay for whatever policing it takes to maintain law and order in and around their stadiums”
You’ll recall that, back in August 2006, ministers announced all in-house stewards at sports grounds with a safety certificate were to be removed from the remit of the Act (achievable by using the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to amend the 2001 Act).
Section 63 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which came into effect on 8 November that year, amends Section 4 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (exemptions from licensing requirements) to exempt certain persons from the licensing requirement under that Act.
It exempts from the licensing requirement all in-house personnel – up to 3,000 individuals, or 25% of all club stewards – who carry out licensable conduct within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act on any part of their home ground, if it is a premises covered by a safety certificate under either the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 or the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 and if the conduct is carried out in connection with the use of those premises for which that safety certificate has effect.
It also exempts in-house staff who accompany their club to other sports grounds where both the home ground and the sports ground being visited are covered by a safety certificate under the safety at sports grounds legislation, and “where the conduct is carried out in connection with the use of the host premises for purposes for which its safety certificate has effect”.
This exemption includes those who supervise contracted staff.
What the football authorities say
The football authorities’ line is this... Spectator safety and stewarding at football grounds is already regulated by local authorities under the oversight of the Football Licensing Authority (FLA). As far as they’re concerned, it would be “a duplication of effort and a waste of resources” if football stewards were also required to be licensed by the SIA.
As things stand, all stewards have to be trained and assessed to a recognised national standard. There are two qualifications accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, namely the NVQ in Spectator Control and the Certificate in Event and Matchday Stewarding. These replace the former Football Stewarding Qualification. The football authorities, the safety officers and the FLA have developed a new module on conflict management, and are adamant this has raised the training to “a level equivalent, but not identical, to that demanded by the SIA”.
I don’t know about you, but whenever I see phrases like “equivalent to” being bandied about I immediately become cynical.
The football authorities will claim they’ve fought so long and hard for this exemption that they’re not likely to place it in jeopardy by failing to comply with the conditions upon which the exemption is granted. There is ongoing talk of “proactive oversight”. Responses to any failure in adherence will “depend upon the scale and nature of non-compliance”. In extreme cases, it remains the case that clubs could “have their ground capacities reduced, be served with a prohibition order or alternatively face legal action”.
Let’s see the enforcement
The FLA oversees the necessary certificates for grounds hosting designated football fixtures, while the relevant local authorities are expected to check stewards’ training records.
Fine, but where’s the evidence that enforcement is happening? There has been the promise of the FLA providing officials at the Home Office with detailed assessments of the “integrity and efficacy” of the exemption, but has this happened?
If so, with what kind of regularity, and why have the results not been made public? I haven’t seen any evidence, that’s for sure.
At the very least, the supporters who pay their hard-earned money to attend games should be privy to the findings, or don’t they count any more after they’ve coughed up for their Season Ticket four months before a ball is even kicked?
A degree of transparency is warranted. A little open book accounting. If the FLA’s equivalent arrangements for in-house stewards are genuinely on a par with the SIA’s licensing process then let’s have some evidence to support that assertion. The SIA is willingly publishing plenty of material in relation to its enforcement activities. The football authorities should be made to do likewise.
In any case, how on Earth can this situation be allowed to continue, with in-house supervisors not licensed by the SIA presiding over contracted stewards who have to be by law? For me, it just doesn’t stack up, and there surely must have been problematic instances where it hasn’t.
If a level playing field is genuinely desired in the wake of SIA licensing, whether that be in the football ‘industry’ or any other, then this ‘mixed economy’-style scenario isn’t the way to go about providing one.
Points of order
Every now and again, something you write hits a nerve. My last SMT Editor’s View seems to have done just that.
“Retailers proven ‘guilty’ will have to be closed down for good. No slap on the wrist or measly fine this time, but closure...”
The whole knife crime debate is really beginning to take off. Steve Collins from PS5 and The Security Institute’s chairman Bill Wyllie are both in Dubai on business at the moment, but as soon as they return the three of us are meeting up to discuss how we progress our industry campaign to make the Government do something about the horrendous death and injury toll in this country as a result of edged weapons. Watch this space...
In the meantime, the discourse does indeed roll on. Travelling home from work last night I picked up the London Lite and on page 4 there was the headline... ‘Knife crime arrests are down 50%’. However, the first paragraph tells you all you need to (as indeed it should do). It reads: “The number of people charged with knife crime has fallen by half in London – despite a rise in teenage murders”. Apparently, Metropolitan Police figures – yes, those good old statistics again – show that in the 12 months to April this year, 1,361 people were taken to Court for possessing a blade.
Of 22 teenagers killed in the Capital so far this year, 17 were knife crime victims. A pretty big percentage, wouldn’t you say? In the year to April 2004, when 2,810 people were charged with offences, 12 teenagers ‘met their maker’.
In the first instance that’s 1,361 people too many carrying a knife with likely intent to harm, but there is an even bigger factor at play. If these figures are to be believed, it shows that when fewer people are charged with knife crime, the number of murders bursts through the roof. Even more reason for the Government to do something about it, I would suggest.
Yesterday, I was in Northampton for a meeting with the senior management team at Unipart Security Solutions. For three hours or more, I chatted with managing director Colin Moore and operations directors Andrew Hayes and Peter Wilkins. All are ex-policemen, and I wondered what they thought of the current knife crime trends?
They made an interesting point. The key to the whole thing is where the victims sit. When Moore, Hayes and Wilkins were in the force, the demographic of victims included people in their 20s and 30s. Now, it’s the teenagers who are involved. This is where the Government’s focus ought to be.
How about a ‘decoy’ or three?
In light of that belief, what of Labour’s latest plans? Well, security minister Vernon Coaker has duly unveiled a project to prevent the illegal sale of knives to anyone under 18. The Government is going to round up some 16 and 17-year-old ‘decoys’ and send them into shops across the country to attempt to buy blades.
What’s that going to do? The ‘decoy’ tactic has been used in relation to alcohol and cigarettes more times than I care to remember, but it hasn’t had much effect in stopping the binge drinking culture and the rising numbers of lung cancer victims.
For this ploy to work, retailers proven ‘guilty’ will have to be closed down for good. No slap on the wrist or measly fine this time, but closure. That is the only way to make a difference and send out a genuinely serious message to all concerned.
Here’s an analogy for you. The reason so many people abuse the drink-drive laws is that they know this legislation isn’t strong enough to really hurt them. Watch any of the ‘fly on the wall’ police programmes on TV and there’ll be people weaving all over the road who are not fit to be in charge of themselves let alone a motor vehicle. They’re taken to the station, a few points will be slapped on their licence – if the presiding Crown Prosecution Service official deems it necessary, that is – and they’ll have to pay a few quid in fines and/or costs. Not long after, it’s all forgotten and that individual can nip down the local again with the car.
What about the families of people disabled for life or murdered by the actions of drink drivers? Who is thinking about them? The lives of too many individuals have been ruined by drink drivers. They’ll not be lucky enough to have a second chance, so why should those who are the cause of their misery and sorrow?
Anyone who drinks and drives and is caught doing so should be banned for life. No argument. Call me Draconian, but that’s my opinion. There’s no excuse for drink driving. There never has been, and nor will there ever be.
With a life sentence totalling about ten years these days, the judicial system has become little more than a joke. Politicians and the men and women in wigs drone on about us not having enough prisons to lock people up for long terms and that’s why we now have Judiciary Lite at play. Well build some more prisons then, Mr Brown. There are plenty of construction workers looking for a job, and we are all certainly paying enough taxes, so what’s the issue here (aside from the fact that the economy is presently in a total shambles)?
Policing the Internet and mail order outlets
The Government is also said to be looking at cracking down on the sale of knives over the Internet and from mail order catalogues. There is a need to do so. Last month, researchers working over a three-day period found that over 9,000 knives, from flick blades through to full-blown machetes, were available for sale on online auction sites. More than half of those implements could be bought without warnings or restrictions.
Worse still, it emerges that four of Britain’s six foremost department stores are currently selling knives with no age limits for purchasers.
One specialist seller has been running no less than five auction sites offering illegal ‘semi-automatic’ daggers with blades that flick out at the touch of a button.
Why aren’t these people being stamped on? How many more innocent teenagers will have to die before something is done?
Until next time.
Brian Sims, Editor, SMT (12.08.2008)

LESSONS LEARNT FROM ILEGAL WORKER CONTROVERSY

As 7000 Security Industry Authority licences are revoked, the British Security Industry Association confirms that lessons have been learnt from the illegal worker controversy that has dogged the security industry over the past few months. BSIA Chief Executive, David Dickinson, comments: "Since the incidence of illegal working in the industry was revealed, our members have been determined to tackle the problem. By working closely with the regulator and the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) and by exchanging best practice, we have made significant strides in eliminating illegal working and the revocation of licences finalises this process." "BSIA members have been particularly concerned by the prevalence of high quality forged documents in use by individuals and will continue to work with the BIA to ensure that they are equipped with the tools to identify them in future." "It should be noted however that the number of licences revoked by the SIA does not automatically mean that there were exactly that number of illegal workers employed within the industry. We believe that a significant number of licence holders now face the prospect of having their licences revoked, whilst still having the right to work. In short, the failure of an individual to demonstrate their right to work or to respond to a letter sent to them by the SIA for whatever reason – be it failure to inform the SIA of a change of address or complacency – will mean that their licence may have been consequently revoked. Employers have not been in any position to influence or affect this process, because they are outside the communication process between the SIA and the licence holder. Consequently, we may never know the final number of illegal workers that have been employed within the industry."