Video Surveillance Vs. Physical Security
I'm a physical security consultant with 3 decades' experience as a consultant, locksmith, hardware specifier and security systems developer & manager. There are some good points raised in the article but I dispute CCTV being a physical security device. It's in the same category as an alarm system; it can report something untoward happening but can't stop or slow the attack/event. Security video rarely deters anyone these days. If you want a perpetrator to notice or care that you have video surveillance, you have to use a lot of signage and use live monitoring tied to guardforce dispatch (demonstrated active deterrence). Even then you'd better have the analytics programmed for each camera so the event can be popped up on the central station display. Someone watching cameras can't notice what's going on after 20 minutes viewing because their brain won't let them continue to pay close attention to a single field for longer.
Real physical security consists of effective structural design and implementation, properly spec'd and installed doors & frames, appropriate door hardware, key control and staff training. If you have network or power problems, good physical security should continue to protect your staff and other assets. Electronic and network based cameras and electronic access control have vulnerabilities that Grade 1 hardware doesn't, though they can make the physical security much more effective by denying intruders time to defeat the physical measures, attack the target and flee before security forces can intercept.
Tesseract Security Consulting Inc.
