According to what other dopers on here mention, many private industries’ security systems seem excessive. Specifically, they mention guards and video cameras.
Neither of those security protections are required for buildings which house Government Top Secret information. TS information can be kept behind a few ID card/PIN doors, an alarm system, and a couple of combination locks.
What makes companies think their information is so important?
Is the government’s security less because they have the full force of the federal government behind tracking down and apprehending bad guys? Maybe since Initech only has Lou from the local PD on their side, they feel like they have to provide even more of their own security?
Perhaps it isn’t so much the information being protected, but other things (such as the people).
The last place I worked which hired security did so to keep transients from sleeping in the breezeways, and to discourage break-ins in the parking lot.
Hypothetical:
If Penetrode was in the process of developing some new widget, a crafty enough engineer from Initech could walk through the building, see what machines were being used, and deduce their level of sophisication/completion. This might give Initech a leg up on Penetrode, and advance development and marketing on a similar widget, costing Penetrode thousands or millions of dollars. All because they didn’t have a pass-key system keeping random stranger out of their labs.
Yes, it’s hypothetical, but if you scale down the dollar figures but increase the volume, the total value is still the same. Perhaps company “A” has a better process in manufacturing something that “B” doesn’t. "A"s costs are lower than “B”, and thus, edges “B” out of the market. “A” would want to protect its processes. If a security system helps protect their bottom line for a fraction of the cost, then the investment pays for iteself.
Yeah man, it really is that cutthroat. As a teenager, I’ve escorted people out of my father’s screenprinting shop in New Jersey.
Tripler
Hell, I don’t like random people nosing around my shop either.
Sometimes Government security can be excessive. I was recently working on an oil rig in Abu Dhabi. There were several policemen whose sole purpose was to stop anyone taking a camera on-board. That’s all cameras, including those on cell phones and laptops. That was a bit much.
I think some of it has to do with a very good slick talking salesperson, selling the GM of a company, a lot of gadgets which are VERY cool.
You put together a rather cheap security package for $1,000 and that would suit a company fine. Then a salesman comes in and shows the GM all sorts of spy cameras and recording devices and such, that look straight out of James Bond.
Add a few scare tactics
Boom major sale and a LOT more security.
Government agencies are a bit harder, 'cause the government has a bid process where you need to get say, three bids on each thing. So it’s harder to make a sale like that to a government agency because before you buy you have to justify the cost.
Now even in governement you can push it through, and some private companies have minimum bids for every purchase too, but you see where I’m going with this
The only place I ever worked that had real security guards (beyond the one-helpful-person-at-the-entrance-who-could-tell-you-where-the elevators-were)was a “home shopping” company. I beleive their major concern was that they had live TV cameras going twenty-four hours a day and didn’t need any crazies barging in attempting to announce their latest manifesto on-air.
Also, there are workplaces that are service oriented and have accepted a professional responsibility or an ethical duty to protect the secrets of clients (e.g., accounting firms and law firms).
insurance.
especially after 9/11, insurance rates went up. I have heard that the extra guards and security gets such a discount on the insurance bill that it is cheaper to have some people peeking at packages than pay the extra insurance.
While I don’t have a cite, I suspect the rationale is like alarm stickers on windows. It has the effect of pushing the evil-doer down the street to the building without the extra stuff. That and the building clients don’t complain/actually like that stuff. Makes them feel important or something.
I used to work at a large high-tech company that searched briefcases, backpacks, etc. I don’t think they were trying to catch people leaking secrets, they were just trying to establish that they were being prudent about protecting their IP. This would allow them to prove in court that their IP was considered valuable if someone got hold of it and they sued. These days. with thumbdribes, iPods, etc. there is no point doing it and they have stopped.
Yea, and I understand corporate espionage is a real thing. However, the US government has come to a conclusion that a certain number of specific security safeguards do a VERY good job of stopping people that aren’t’ supposed to be there. I am sure they have studied it very well and they are willing to bet state secrets on it.
Don’t want someone in a room? Put in a combo lock and a simple IDT alarm, and pretty much, people don’t go in there. That has to be cheaper than guards and people manning video cameras.
Locks are indeed great when the goal is to keep somebody out of a room. But not-so-nice things often happen where the culprit was indeed supposed to be alllowed in the room in the first place.
For example, video cameras are long-term cheap and often provide after-the-fact evidence when something untoward happens in a public area (For a recent incident where this happened, there’s this guy who snatched three Phillies World Series rings yesterday and got caught on surveillance cameras doing it). He was in a public area at the time (and yes, the envelope containing those rings probably shouldn’t have been lying on the counter.)
And security folks get pretty handy when an employee or guest who is in fact supposed to be in the area he/she is in gets unruly.
I’m not that familiar with government agencies that handle Top Secret information (nor do I particularly want to be). Could you give me an example or two of government buildings which house top secret information and don’t use either guards or video cameras? Because that just doesn’t sound like the government I know and love.
I don’t think I understand your question then. . . Section 5-303 of your above link indicates that at a minimum, a secured, barred steel safe is required, with additional ‘supplemental controls’ to be implemented–to include security guards if needed.
I work in an environment with ciphered doors and X-09 locks. They’re meant to slow people down, but given enough explosives and time, anyone is going to get in and to the secured space. I don’t think there’s a definitive answer to your question, “What makes companies think their information is so important?” Well, the companies do, so they do what they feel is prudent.
Tripler
I dunno–cheaper layers of passive security are more cost effective against general threats. Companies may have specific ones in mind.
I work at a post-production facility. Our security measures include photo ID badges, security cameras inside and outside the office, restricted entry into the office, a single, manned parking entrance, 24-hour roaming security guards, mandatory 3-month password changes, restricted server access, and watermarked files.
The reason for these measures is that in order to do our work, we require media, scripts, and other files that their owners, our clients, would like to protect and control. It would be a very serious legal problem if our clients’ property was stolen and illegally distributed. This isn’t just hypothetical; years ago, when our security was less than it currently is, we had an employee steal files that eventually found their way online. The FBI got involved, all our clients got very nervous, and we had to make some serious, visible changes to restore order and client confidence.
Additionally, the security of our workplace and practices is used as a selling point when we court new clients, and it’s heavily weighed when current clients renegotiate their contracts with us.
I might have worked in the same place. In a book by the chief architect of the Pentium IV, he discovered that his high position excluded him from having to go through these checks. He told the PTB that he would never hire anyone too stupid to smuggle information out if they wanted to. I believe it stopped, that was after I left, though.
It’s hard to know which buildings house top secret information because, well… that’s secret. But here in DC you can pretty much tell when a building is a likely target because of the jersey wall traffic barriers and armed guards pacing the grounds.
Many, many buildings within the DC Government have multiple layers of security. Most require package x-ray and metal detector walk-through.
Surely you’d have to pass by some guards and cameras before getting to a combination lock, PIN door, or ID card scanner. They don’t just build a room, put secrets in it, then drop it off in a field and leave it completely unmanned and unmonitored.
