Fox News Rent-A-Cops

[SSPine]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276002,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsections/waronterror

[N. A. Corbier]

Source: Associated Press
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2007

If this was front page on Fox recently, they're just recycling AP reports. I have never had a high opinion of the AP.

[SSPine]

Sorry about reposting it. I just read it this morning.

[mh892]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...ns/waronterror

This report came out a couple years ago. I see it now has a date of May 2007. Must be a slow news period.

[Chimpie]

Maybe an old story, but I think that most people see security that way none-the-less.

[JB diligence]

I watched something similar on CNN about a mounth ago. I guess it all boils down to how the client wants things done and how seriously they take security. Security is something I believe you get what you pay for. Do you want something that "looks" good for insurance or a group of professionals who will protect your employees/visitors, property and assets in the best posible way?

I worked contract for quite a while before being hired by an inhouse service and I still remember where I came from. The problem I see with alot of but not all contract security companies is the wages and training. Many are low paying with little or no benefits, while having a large responsibility therefore the turnover rate is fast. Sure the S/O's may be great employees and care about what the do, but cant live on minimum wage so they move on, on the other hand some companies will hire anyone (as the story suggests) to fill a position regardless of criminal record and so on.

Pay a person well give them benefits as well as continuious training and they will be more likely to stick around and perform well in return.

Unfortunately the public sees something like this story and paints us all with the same brush.

[Christopherstjo]

Old news or not - it still has very valid points - the fact that it may be old news should be a concern to everyone that things have not significantly changed despite the issues existing and effects resulting.

[junkyarddog]

This is a MAJOR problem. The only solution is for federal law calling for standardized training, pay, and a "security scale" which would determine the level of S/O (and therefore also training, pay and weaponry) based on what they are guarding. Also, of course, it would be necessary for congress to cash- supplement security companies/customers in order to offset the additional costs.

Things are a mess where this is concerned.

For example- the difference between "report and detect" security and human physical security. The former is really just an information collection and distribution system, and the deterrence therein implied (aka human security camera). The latter is supposed to apply physical force towards the goal of maintaining security.

That is the reality, but the perception is much different. The "information" security officer is often thought of as a "cop" and though "trained" otherwise, the psychological implication of actual police authority is there. Pre 9-11 this
is a marketing and recruiting trick, post 9-11 it is dangerous misinformation. This is only one example of the misinformation that is present throughout the industry.

[sgtnewby]

Source: Associated Press
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2007

If this was front page on Fox recently, they're just recycling AP reports. I have never had a high opinion of the AP.

I've never had a high opinion of Fox News. They don't think 23 gunshots fired across a hospital ambulance driveway is newsworthy, they'll film you marking off shell casings, but it just isn't newsworthy....

[tattedupboy]

This is a MAJOR problem. The only solution is for federal law calling for standardized training, pay, and a "security scale" which would determine the level of S/O (and therefore also training, pay and weaponry) based on what they are guarding. Also, of course, it would be necessary for congress to cash- supplement security companies/customers in order to offset the additional costs.

Things are a mess where this is concerned.

For example- the difference between "report and detect" security and human physical security. The former is really just an information collection and distribution system, and the deterrence therein implied (aka human security camera). The latter is supposed to apply physical force towards the goal of maintaining security.

That is the reality, but the perception is much different. The "information" security officer is often thought of as a "cop" and though "trained" otherwise, the psychological implication of actual police authority is there. Pre 9-11 this
is a marketing and recruiting trick, post 9-11 it is dangerous misinformation. This is only one example of the misinformation that is present throughout the industry.

I disagree with requiring federal legislation to regulate the entire industry, or any industry, for that matter. Unless a particular security company is working for the government, government has no business telling companies how to run their businesses. Different companies have different needs, and in a free marketplace, supply and demand, not government fiat, should be the determining factor as to how companies decide to train their guards. Obviously, companies will begin to figure out that the more training they require of their guards, the better their reputations will be, and the more their services will be in demand; no legislation is needed in a free marketplace. Supply and demand, with no interference from the government, will always work things out for the best.

[craig333]

If only that were true. Unfortunately the reasons for the need for government regulation are voluminus. Sure, government bureaucracies tend to over do it, but unfettered capitalism is a disaster.

[tattedupboy]

If only that were true. Unfortunately the reasons for the need for government regulation are voluminus. Sure, government bureaucracies tend to over do it, but unfettered capitalism is a disaster.

Only for industries that are not competitive, such as airlines, cable service, home telephone service, and most utility companies. Security is a competitive industry, and therefore no government regulation is necessary.

[HotelSecurity]

Security is a competitive industry, and therefore no government regulation is necessary.

Is this a joke? private security is one of the most competitive industries!!!!

[Christopherstjo]

Security is a competitive industry, and therefore no government regulation is necessary.

It is precisely because the industry is so competitive that government reg's are necessary by the vary nature of the direct influences s/o's have over the lives and safety of others and the degree that s/o's control 85% of the critical infrastructures across the nation.

Unfortunately, governmental callus indifferences are as abundant as the media mindset that what goes on in security stays in security.

[junkyarddog]

I disagree with requiring federal legislation to regulate the entire industry, or any industry, for that matter. Unless a particular security company is working for the government, government has no business telling companies how to run their businesses. Different companies have different needs, and in a free marketplace, supply and demand, not government fiat, should be the determining factor as to how companies decide to train their guards. Supply and demand, with no interference from the government, will always work things out for the best.

I am an advocate of free market capitalism, but also of the role of government as a regulating entity in some situations.

Security is one of those situations. When the role of a business is providing a service critical to the public welfare, government needs to have a regulating role.

Take electrical power transmission and distribution for example. It doesn't take much to knock out a big piece of the grid. Electricity is critical to the public welfare. Yet most of the industry is privately owned. Probably better off that way. But as a privately owned business they are more concerned with loss prevention and limiting "shrinkage" and much less focused on their obligation to the public as providers of a critical service. In other words, they are concerned about limiting insurance and legal liability. That means they go with the cheapest possible security.

Do we have government simply take over the entire power generation, transmission and distribution industry? No. We simply have government mandate that security protecting this critical infrastructure meets certain standards in terms of training and screening, and also off set the additional costs.

Obviously, companies will begin to figure out that the more training they require of their guards, the better their reputations will be, and the more their services will be in demand; no legislation is needed in a free marketplace.

The biggest and most successful security companies in the US are also the absolute worse in terms of training and screening. Marketing precedes "reputation". It is why the leading companies in almost any industry invest more and more in marketing and constantly seek to find ways to spend less and less on actual quality.

I am tempted to argue that the free market is not the perfection many think it is, but thats not really appropriate for this forum. I will say this: look at the biggest and most successful companies in any mainstream commercial industry. They dominate by selling massive quantities of units of material or service, at a low quality and profit per unit. The investment is in marketing to achieve maximum unit sales, not in quality to achieve maximum quality per unit.

I'll end this post with a link to a study done by the Congressional Research Service on the subject of security guards and critical infrastructure in America:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:VMsVgMcjhGsJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32670.pdf+critical+infrastructure+security&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&lr=lang_en