Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Security just a scam?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    As much as it pains me to say this, I truly believe that security firms essentially exist to put themselves out of business. Think about it, if a previously anarchic site brings in a security firm that eliminates the lawlessness and the environment becomes essentially crime-free, and stays that way as long as the security firm is there, there are going to be some people, whose primary concern is their firm's bottom line, who aren't going to see a need for so much security, and will find reasons to reduce or eliminate it. As soon as that happens, however, lawlessness starts back on the rise and the security that remains, faced with an increased workload, gets blamed for the problems that continue to arise, and eventually, the company is either eliminated or replaced, and the cycle will then repeat itself. If more firms would simply open their eyes and see that nothing happens with their current security staff, that is not a reason to get rid of them, but rather to keep them around so that it stays that way.

    Comment


    • #32
      update

      After one of our mobile patrol units got into an accident because he was in a rush, very few people actually able to finish their tours, etc. etc. the decision has been made to cut coverage way back. So that the sites we hit actually are secure. That makes me feel a little better.

      Also, change is in the air and its allot bigger than this recent cutback. I think the cutback may just be a part of that. If it is what I think it is, it is a very very good thing. We'll see.
      formerly C&A

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by wjohnc View Post
        Yes, I agree to a point. As a whole I think it succeeds, but measured by individual companies and personnel, well, I'm afraid I've just seen too much crap here in Newfoundland to believe that they succeed.

        Please bear in mind that I have had almost no exposure to companies outside this city of 160 000 people, and I apologize if I have offended your professionalism.

        wjohnc
        You might have a better experience working for an "internal" security department such as one in a hospital, airport or some other larger employer rather than a contract agency.

        It might also be that your experience is showing you a gap in the contract agency niche in your area that needs to be filled by someone who has a higher vision of what security can be when it takes its duties seriously. Who knows that there aren't security clients out there who are saying the same thing and looking for something better?
        "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

        "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

        "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

        "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
          As much as it pains me to say this, I truly believe that security firms essentially exist to put themselves out of business. Think about it, if a previously anarchic site brings in a security firm that eliminates the lawlessness and the environment becomes essentially crime-free, and stays that way as long as the security firm is there, there are going to be some people, whose primary concern is their firm's bottom line, who aren't going to see a need for so much security, and will find reasons to reduce or eliminate it. As soon as that happens, however, lawlessness starts back on the rise and the security that remains, faced with an increased workload, gets blamed for the problems that continue to arise, and eventually, the company is either eliminated or replaced, and the cycle will then repeat itself. If more firms would simply open their eyes and see that nothing happens with their current security staff, that is not a reason to get rid of them, but rather to keep them around so that it stays that way.
          It really isn't a matter of people erroneously seeing less need for security when a previously chaotic condition is brought under control. In fact, there *IS* often less need for security as the threat diminishes, and that's the whole point of bringing it under control. You haven't brought it under control if you can only maintain control with a very high security presence. If that's the case, you haven't actually modified the threat environment itself.

          The error would be in believing that the need for security has vanished completely on the basis of a lack of new "incidents". There will always be some level of threat, and any reduction in force must be based on an objective reassessment of the new (or modified) threat environment. If the effort has been successful, however, the threats will be reduced and it is very reasonable to reconfigure and re-task the security force as long as it is done properly and monitor the situation closely to be sure you're maintaining the new secure status of the property.

          Naturally, there's something a little ironic about the idea of "working ourselves out of a job", but it's not that unusual, either. A physician who strives to keep his clients healthy might be said, in a way, to be reducing the income potential that he might have if his clients were sick and needed to visit the clinic every week, or when he cures a patient and finds himself saying "You don't need to come back now until your regular checkup next year." He isn't saying "You don't need healthcare anymore", but "We can drop back to maintenance healthcare now...the threat has been abated." I think of it somewhat like that.
          Last edited by SecTrainer; 07-30-2007, 02:02 AM.
          "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

          "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

          "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

          "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

          Comment


          • #35
            Drugs

            Originally posted by talon View Post
            Along the same lines...do you think that the public police really want to win the "war on drugs"? Imagine how many police, emt's, correction officers, clerks and attorneys to name a few would lose out. Its all about money.
            I am sorry, but I have to agree with Talon on this. Having worked as a Customs Special Investigator, Police Investigator and Police Officer, I have had first hand knowledge on the effects of the money the drugs have brought in, It is not hundred's of millions, but into the billions that are seized.

            Money buys corruption, why do you think drugs are so easily transported across the border? I was once involved in a drug bust overseas, the trafficker asked what it would take to turn my back for 5 minutes, I jokingly replied 500 million, he gave me a blank check and said.."Is that all?"

            After turning him in, I was in the area 2 weeks later and saw the same guy walking free. His response to me was..."You should of taken the money". So yes drugs=money=corruption.

            That is one of the major reasons I left the government. It was running rampant.

            Comment

            Leaderboard

            Collapse
            Working...
            X