Subscribe to RSS - iPhone

iPhone

Is it possible to break the security cycle?

 - 
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Normally, I have a lot of sympathy for security guards. I think many times they are the unsung heroes of security - the folks who are never paid enough, but are expected to save the day. They are the guys and gals out there making sure you and I are okay and if we're not, they know what to do. Unless, of course, their hands are tied by silly policies aimed to protect corporations or agencies from being sued. I understand liability. I talk to transit agencies regularly and one of their primary reasons for having video surveillance is to protect themselves from false claims just as much as it is to protect their patrons. Do you think forward-looking video cameras are to ensure that buses remain on the right route? No, it's to make sure that if the bus is involved in an accident, they have evidence about who's at fault and who has the right to sue. And while I think it's a sad testament to the world we live in, I'm okay with that kind of proactive security.

But, what happens when agencies take that fear of liability too far? The incident in Seattle where security guards stood there as a girl got beaten up is beyond disgraceful. And, in many ways, I'm sympathetic to the guards involved. Did they want to intervene? No one knows, but my guess would be yes. Very few of us choose to stand around and watch another human get hurt, knowing we can help. But, because the transit agency had a ridiculous, "observe and report" stipulation, these guards were restricted from intervening for fear of losing their jobs. And that's disgraceful. Disgraceful, especially, for the folks upstairs who make these policies.

But apparently that policy has been changed. Shocking, I know. According to this article: "Security guards in Seattle's bus tunnel now have the authority to break up a fight, or physically defend themselves." Great. I would say that's the public's definition of a security guard's duties. Glad those in charge are coming up to speed on this.

Seattle City Council met with Metro Police Chief Major Dave Jutilla, King County deputies and Seattle police to talk about the new security plan. "The focus really has been de-escalation of volatile situations, responding to hostile situations and give the security guards the basic skill to defend themselves,” Jutilla said.

As part of the new security plan, the tunnel guards working for Olympic Security Services will be given additional training and can step in to stop a fight or protect a bus rider.

Wow, so they can actually provide security? Really, that's monumental. What's so aggravating about this incident and the response it's garnered is that it's so typical: Something happens, everybody freaks out, a lot of money gets spent to fix the problem, and over time, when the public memory fades, those policies and solutions start going by the wayside, security budgets get cut again and likely the exact same vulnerabilities reappear. What will it take to break this security cycle?

Video Surveillance in Seattle Parks

 - 
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Seattle Times is reporting that the pilot project to put surveillance cameras in Seattle parks is being expanded to include a total of 4 parks. There's been a rich public discussion since the first park cameras went live in February. Some felt the deterrent effect made them safer. Others reflected Seattle's famously rebellious streak by voicing concerns about privacy. To quote:

"In a free and open society, people should have the right to be present in public spaces without being monitored by the government," said Jennifer Shaw of ACLU Washington at Monday's council meeting."It's a changed world as we've been told so often. It's a world where we're suspicious of people who might be terrorists or we have a Big Brother looking over our shoulder," [a councilmember] said.

"Surveillance cameras are going to be sending us down that road, and I'm not sure that's a world I want to go in and help create."

Others are keeping an open mind, since after all this is a pilot project. The project doesn't include monitoring of the cameras except by police during 911 calls, but it does include the removal of public toilets and newly scheduled ranger patrols.

[The chairman of the parks committee] emphasized the cameras are a pilot project. "We'll see if improvement is either made in perception of crime or safety."

And a columnist for the Seattle Times went out in search of "some good ol' Seattle-style Big Brother outrage" at one of the parks — and didn't find any.

All the discussion is good. And I'm glad it also includes new ideas people are putting forward to make the cameras p[rovide the most public benefit (after all, that's who's paying for them).
I remember reading about one woman who advocated for public online access to the cameras so she could check and see if things looked safe before she took her young child to the park. I suppose a tool for the good can be used for the bad (cyberstalking, now with video!) but the main thing is for us all to contribute to a dialogue and get all the possibilities and potential pitfalls on the table.

- - - - - -

Contributed by Abigail Hamilton, director of marketing for Airship Industries, a developer of advanced video surveillance solutions.