You are currently browsing the archives for the Physical Security category.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
2 September 2009 by Jeff Hayes.
I am a big fan of the BBC program called Spooks. It is marketed in the USA as MI-5, viewed on some PBS stations or online from Netflix. (If you like the Fox show, 24, you will like MI-5/Spooks). Most of the episodes deal with terrorism. A key piece of technology they use in their investigations and surveillance is closed-circuit television (CCTV). It got me thinking about the question: are we better or worse off with a ubiquitous CCTV system?
Britain and many European nations are heavily wired with CCTV. London boroughs have anywhere from 0.25 to 4 CCTV cameras per 1000 people. Back in 2002, the average citizen in the UK was caught on CCTV cameras 300 times a day; this number has increased because the number of cameras have increased. The U.A.E. is deploying thousands of CCTV cameras (and security guards) at an increasing number of locations within their transportation system. The USA is increasing the use of CCTV cameras, deploying them at various locations including public gathering places and major road intersections.
The are good at recording crime in urban areas. But there is a major privacy issue at play. One must avoid the position that “if you are not doing anything illegal, then you should not be concerned; that they are for the public good — for our own safety.” With that argument then why not place government-monitored cameras in your house, backyards, classrooms, churches?
Should we used cameras for catching speeders? Why not? It is in the best interest of society’s safety isn’t it?
The problem is that the scope of the cameras expands from terrorism and serious crimes like rape, assault and robbery. It morphs into the fields of sociology and psychology. It then becomes an invasion of privacy. CCTV cameras have been used to investigate dog fouling, littering, public urination, misuse of a disabled parking passes, false claims for damages, and spying on a person who was working while off sick. We might detest any and all of these but do we want our government policing these at significant tax payer cost?
Apparently many societies say yes. Others, including me, say no.
Posted in Physical Security, Homeland Security, Privacy | Print | 1 Comment »
26 June 2009 by Jeff Hayes.
I have worked at home for part of each week for over ten years. I have never had any guidance from my employer on security practices, mandates or recommendations (less the case where I am the employer or part-owner). I think I do a pretty decent jobs at securing my home and mobile computing environment.
I was interested in how I fared after reading a recent article entitled Seven Deadly Sins of Home Office Security. Let’s consider them:
Probably my biggest mistake, according to this list, is separating my business from non-business activities as it relates to my computer. For me, who works in a small business environment, my business is very much part of my life and working at home is what I do.
If I want to watch a Netflix streaming video on my computer, I will do so without hesitation.
I back-up regularly but probably not regular enough. I am thinking strongly about a remote backup system to bolster my business continuity posture.
This list is a good checklist. But the better solution is for the management team to insist upon a prudent yet reasonable approach to remote and home computing with clear policies backed by consistent audits and enforcement.
Posted in Physical Security, Remote Access, Privacy | Print | 1 Comment »
29 May 2009 by Jeff Hayes.
Are you an information hoarder? Are you one of those who thinks “I had better save this because I might need it some day?” An effective document destruction practice can help prevent information from falling into the wrong hands, be they competitors, media, employees, partners, government agencies, and lawyers.
Ben Rothke’s recent article in CSO magazine, Why Information Must Be Destroyed, written in two installments, provides good insight into the issue.
No one is suggesting to violate legal and regulatory requirements. Rather a firm should support those requirements to a fault, and nothing beyond.
Some people still think they need to print out copies of certain documents because it is easier to read. After spending the past 3 years teaching online courses, online reading, even text books and long articles, is a learned skill. It is one I appreciate and am thankful for. It saves on cabinet space. I remember having large paper files and filing cabinets. I have one at home and one at work. They are mostly empty and rarely get used. Needed information is kept on secure hard drives in multiple locations. Any paper not needed is tossed, shredded or placed in secure containers associated with a viable information destruction company (mobile- or plant-based shredders).
What information should be shredded when no longer needed? Although it will vary between industries, here’s a good list, albeit incomplete:
In part 2 of Rothke’s article, he comments on the need and process of destroying digital media. Hard drives fail. Computers reach an end of life either practically or financially. Mobile digital media have a life span. All of this material needs to be destroyed or sanitized according to industry or policy guidelines. There’s a right way and a wrong way to clean and/or destroy media. This can be done in-house or outsourced.
Create an information destruction plan and execute it consistently. Physical and digital media destruction or sanitation are key components to an effective data loss prevention program.
Posted in Physical Security | Print | No Comments »