Advances in electronic security techology â€“ especially the switch from analog to digital video cameras â€“ are marvelous and impressive, but they tend to produce a one-dimensional view of security: If you can see it you can stop it.
That’s not always the case. For example, the cover story in the August issue of Today’s Facility Manger magazine, “Surveillance: Keeping Watch,” quotes a security specialist: “Facilities with the most pedestrian traffic and combined assets are considered targets,” citing such examples as “transit facilities, financial centers, corporate and industrial properties, schools and universities, large sports venues, and energy facilities.”
Yet, for such facilities, the only mode of protection discussed is video surveillance and the information technology (IT) supporting video. Such single-minded coverage seems typical in the security press. But what if there’s a vehicle-impelled assault on a facility’s perimeter? Video might then simply be recording an intrusion that could shortly turn into a ghastly scene.
Sensitive facilities need to be protected by well-integrated security systems, including video cameras, but also, depending on the setting, guards, barriers and fencing. For hostile vehicles, cameras coupled with guards and a fast-acting vehicle access control barrier comprise a full-out system of intrusion control.
We at PRO Barrier Engineering would like to see more than a one-dimensional approach in articles hailing breakthroughs in electronic security technology.