Letters.

Boogeyman Blues

I was recently reading an article in e-week (February 5, p. 56) titled "Stop Using The Boogeyman to Sell Security." In this article David Thompson of PricewaterhouseCoopers wrote: "The Boogeyman may be a childish cliche, but security professionals use him all the time in their attempts to convince corporate management to buy into whatever project they're advocating. The security industry has for years been in the business of selling fear. Its dire warnings of catastrophic events have become so commonplace, management has tuned them out."

Soon after reading that piece, I find in the mail the February issue of Security Management, and in "Viewpoint," I read a boogeyman article ("Who Should Chart Security's Course?") by ASIS member Norman D. Bates. In the article, Bates calls upon ASIS to play a more active role in setting national standards, arguing that ASIS sets standards every time it gives a seminar.

I am not in favor of standards, nor do I feel the Society should support them. ASIS has historically stepped away from standards and regulations over the years with good reason. Why hasn't the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Institute of Real Estate Management, or the International Securities Market Association drafted and completed such a project? The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) subcommittee (which had plaintiff lawyers in the committee) voted the project down.

Why put together a set of standards that cannot be monitored or enforced? Don't be fooled by the boogeyman here.

LAWRENCE J. FENNELLY

President/Senior Consultant

Litigation Consultants, Inc.

Milton, Massachusetts 

Or Wake-Up Call?

In response to Norman D. Bates's article, "Who Should Chart Security's Course?" ("Viewpoint," February), all I can say is that no man is a prophet in his own time. I have seen firsthand what the lack of standards has done and the cost attendant to it. Recently, I took a position with an agency that had a substantial integrated access control and life-safety monitoring system. The elements of the system that fell under National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 72 were uniform and easy to service and maintain. The access control (security) side was completely dysfunctional.

As a consequence of the lack of security standards, each technician installed and programmed the system as he saw fit. A covert button to summon help was programmed to appear on the central station monitor as anyone of the following: "Hold-up," "Panic," "Alert," "Alarm," and "Duress." Running management reports required the manual integration of all of the data to produce meaningful statistics. We also have CCTV cameras that use a half dozen different connector fittings. I could go on for pages.

The Central Station Alarm Association has a draft standard for codifying central station operation; the work by the ASTM subcommittee and others is already completed. We need to rally behind this wake-up call and support the notion of our organization establishing standards for our industry; the seeds have already been sown. The question that Mr. Bates raises is a crucial one: do we wait for others to fill this vacuum?

BERNARD L. BUCKNER, CPP 

Manager, Security Systems

GCRTA 

Cleveland, Ohio 

Eyeing CCTV Effectiveness

I just read the March issue of Security Management. I really enjoyed the article on the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History, "A Mammoth Protection Task," by James L. Mustoe. I was particularly intrigued by the reliance on a single monitoring station for the extensive CCTV network described in detail as well as the descriptions of the other very sophisticated security measures used. However, the photograph of the CCTV monitoring station on page 67 illustrates the weakness of reliance on CCTV. All of that money for equipment, installation, and training is wasted when the person charged with monitoring is not watching the monitors.

MICHAEL D. CARMAN 

Museum Division Director

State Capitol Museum

Arizona Department of Library, Archives and Public Records

Phoenix, Arizona

Editor's Note: Mr. Carman raises a good point, so we went back to the author for an explanation. Mr. Mustoe says that the picture was posed. They took several shots and decided to use one with the operator at an angle so that his face could be in the picture. However, he also notes that Mr. Carman's concern is, nevertheless, well founded, because the security officers have other duties, such as giving out cards and keys to staff making temporasy badges for visitors, and answering the phones. These duties do take the officer's eyes from the monitors from time to time. "That's why we tape," says Mustoe. Also, he notes that they have motion sensors at cameras trained on entry/exit areas that should not be getting traffic. These would alarm and draw the officer's attention if activity occured. Mustoe acknowledges that it's not a perfect system, but it is, he says, the most reasonable one given the staffing limitations he must work within. "I don't have the staffing to have someone sit there and do nothing but loo k at a screen," he concludes.