On the nature of personal security.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:14
VIEWED: 1282
PAGE 1 of 1

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:23 PM

This is a rant, but maybe a useful one.

As some of you know, just got done helping a bunch of smaller media companies contract personal security for their personnel, something that a recent event brought out the need for, and dealing with the idiotic misperceptions of some of these folk about drove me up the damned wall.

So, lemme explain to you folk, at least just to get it off my chest, some things about the business and nature thereof.

Firstly, a personal security specialist is NOT a no-neck thug right off the extras list from some bad italian mafia movie, neither size nor stupidity is a viable or useful factor, get that right out of your head up front.

Your typical no-neck is some beefy, brainless ex-bar bouncer or concert security shover who has virtually no training and an aggressive personality that's likely to cause more security issues than it solves, and just by personal experience they seem to be tempermental types, not to mention you can spot them a mile away which renders them even less effective.

And if you want some fully-trained ex-cop/ex-army type, there's a couple issues with that too, not saying there aren't some good fish in that pond, but you're all too likely to wind up with a rocket-jock, as I call em.

Your typical rocket-jock is well trained, and may or may not be too aggressive, but as a general rule takes their job a bit *too* seriously, which combined with authority issues often results in one's own security hemming them in and hampering their performance, not to mention in the case of many ex-cops, the combination of training and authority issues just about guarantees every "situation" is going to be escalated, often needlessly, by said security until you have a real problem, and a serious financial liability for your company as well if said escalation leads to injury.

Many more bad examples, but those two are the most common and the worst.

The ideal personal security specialist will first and foremost, look like anything BUT what they are, they should not stand out so badly that they ought to be holding a neon sign, and above all will keep in mind at all times that YOU set the course and make the decisions, their job is to ensure your safety as best as possible, not define your course to make their job easier.

They also should be able to perform their responsibilities without crowding you physically, and subtle enough that you are not disturbed by or even aware of their presence, good security *prevents* an incident, rather than standing in front of you to soak up the punishment when one happens cause their too busy crowding you to prevent one.

They should be observent, suspicious, and above all able to make good decisions and act on them speedily with needful restraint, as well as having a good working knowledge of the legal limits and ramifications for their actions, even if said action might require placing themselves in the path of those bastions of law and order when they've overstepped their own boundries.
(This was a very tricky bit to handle - the legal tangle of when it is or is not appropriate for your security to if needful, engage the police on your behalf, but there are times when it is, let's not have any doubt about that, ok ?)

Not all security personnel need be armed, but generally the extendable baton is entirely sufficient for the work, and if such position requires the carrying of a firearm of course all personnel should be licensed, fully-trained with an acknowledged course and bonded/insured - this will radically increase the price and as stated is generally not necessary because security or not, one should avoid places where you're likely to get shot at... and said personnel are always *fully* aware that even the most justified weapon discharge is likely to cost over $30,000.00 USD in legal fees and an endless round and round in civil court as well dodging a get-rich-quick lawsuit attempt by surviving perps family.

All that being noted, it makes no nevermatter whether or not you like your security folk, or whether they like you - real

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:40 PM

I ain't even gonna ask how you got involved.

Aw heck. Yes I will!

HOW did you get involved?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:41 PM

BTW- I hope you realize you just dashed my dreams of having Kevin Costner's shoulder to cry on!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

VETERAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:54 PM

reminds me of Our Mrs. Reynolds and I paraphrase..."one of these days your gonna tell us how you know so much about this stuff."

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:25 PM

Well, to paraphrase Books reply - "I wasn't always a cab driver."

Seriously tho, prior to the accident which near killed me and left me physically unfit for the work, I was a security specialist, and quite able in the field, although imma lazy bastard and preferred industrial security cause I dislike dealing with people.
(Ok, on edit this turned into a rant too, lol, still useful to know tho)

Worked for a good company too, now defunct, which lead to my hatred of "The Four Horsemen", of our current times... and who are they, you might ask ?

Pinkertons - A bunch of strike-breaking scum, prototype private army and general slimerags, which were the enforcement arm of the corporate robber barons of the late 1800's

Also worth noting is that these slime were the original bedrock of the US Dept of Justice, in spite of their immoral and often downright illegal conduct, which should then give no surprise to US DOJ's failure to comply with the subpeano process at this time.

They're now part of Securitas Security Services, snidely referred to by those in the trade as "The S.S."

Not nice folks at all, and damned untrustworthy, given a certain *recent* history of corporate espionage against the very folks who hired them.

Wackenhut - There's not much bad you CAN'T say about these guys, these lowlife cretins have had an incestous relationship with american alphabet agencies since their inception, and thus have carried out numerous badly hatched or botched plots and agendas, on top of having a really BAD reputation as being piss-poor at their job besides, doing so poorly that in spite of a juicy original contract to help US Airport Security, they were dumped from all but four airports prior to the TSA and DHS taking over those responsibilities.

They also had some hand in the private prison industry, but their record there is so horrific it's unmentionable - and more recently have acted as a strongarm for elements of the Republican Party,

In fact, these creepers are SO bad that prior to DynCorp and Blackwater, they were the only security company *ever* to have war-crimes charges levelled against them.

The SEIU, after uncountable foulups and run-ins, decided the matter needed a website of it's own, and can be found here.
http://www.eyeonwackenhut.org/

Bad, BAD people, for the moment part of Group 4 Securicor, and the parent corp's rep is every bit as horrible.

DynCorp - These goons got their real start (being incompetent aircraft mechanics prior to that) as being a deniable strongarm for the US Gov down in Columbia, where prettymuch anything goes, as long as you don't get caught.

From there they were sent into Bosnia to reduce US troop commitment there, and dependancy on them lead to a wonderful PR disaster when they got caught engaging in the same behavior for which they were known in Columbia for - all the more dangerous because DynCorp is a *military* arm, moreso than security, and attracts all kinds of nutters and wannabes that can't get past even the minimal screening of the US Army or Police forces, so you can just imagine what they wind up with, including obviously a high concentration of severely racist folk.

We still got some of these morons running around in Iraq and Afghanistan, and prettymuch wherever they go, disaster follows, and it's not like they could do their job effectively anyways - care to guess who was in charge of security after our invasion when all hell broke loose and everything but the oil ministry (defended by actual US troops) was ransacked ?

And they've done such a wonderful job training and equipping the Iraqi police and restoring it's legal system, haven't they ?

Pure scum, mercs of the worst order, and worse, incompetent ones.

Blackwater - Of em all however, these guys are the worst, it's not that they are incompetent, far from it, many of the people they hire are very well trained and experienced soldiers, it's that they have no true legal or moral oversight and function in a more or less completely mercenary role

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:26 PM

And second set, post ranting there (damn that felt good to get off my chest!)

When you have a company contracting another company to pull security, there's a lot more to it than just slipping soon goon a couple bucks on the side, see ?

You need a bail bondsman with a pre-existing agreement and retainer, ESPECIALLY in this particular set where your security folk might wind up going toe to toe with the LAPD in defense of the principal.

You need a lawyer, under contract and on retainer, not just for that possibility but for any liability or personal injury issues which might arise, be it your personnel or injuries to a putative assailant.

You need a boilerplate contract outlining the legal and financial responsibilities and liabilities of the hiring corp and the security corp and where they lie, with a suggested firm for arbitration if there is any dispute.

Then you need to find your personnel, select them, see if they'll take the job, make them aware of responsibilities and limits, and work a schedule for them and their backups.

Equipment, handling thereof, etc - there's a lot to it, more so than you would think.

SOP for the typical case we're dealing with here is an on-call 3 man team.

Bear in mind, the principal is NOT told who or where these guys are, this is a needful seperation because they can NOT 'take orders' from the principal and do their job correctly, and to prevent any thought of influencing the principals actions to make their own job easier, it's an easy trap and a bad habit.

Yes, being reporters and not stupid, especially having been told they'll be provided with security from now on, they may suspect or assume, but basic policy is to not discuss or address the issue unless something critical comes up like a severe personality conflict or the like.

So, 3 man team.

You've got the on-site guy who *has* to look utterly innocous, and requires some actual, real, valid reason to be there, in this case a technical specialty to run audio or visual equipment of the nature used by the profession - and plus points for that harmless geeky look.

You've got an undercover nearby, a crowd blender, who keeps an eye on the situation from range and has a good chance to spot suspicious conduct directed towards the principal from that vantage and so inform the on-site guy via walkby or pre-arranged signal.

Due to social and technical advancement, ironically, THIS guy can often be equipped rather blatantly with a cellphone to masquerade as your typical cellphone yakker jerk, hiding it in plain sight as it were... all he really needs though is a simple "heads-up" signal, and that is usually done by the walk-by, simply crossing the path of the principals team in innocous fashion gives the on-site guy the heads-up and lets him know there's potential for trouble.

And man three is usually vehicular, delivery truck, taxicab, utility van, anything that no one would ever look twice at, and his job is generally to park nearby the principals vehicle and assure it's security and integrity - and as bailout guy in case things go to hell in a handbasket and the principal needs to be extracted.

And if you think it's easy to set all that up, and do so for a fee affordable to small bi-lingual media companies.. it's not - oh, yeah, some of the personnel need obviously to be bi-lingual as well in order to function effectively.

Mostly on my end this was a matter of being informed of the security needs and then finding an appropriate company to fill them, and translating those needs versus dumbass misperceptions in both directions and sorting out what was needed for who and when and for how much... and for the how, well, not many security folk have a deep-seated dislike of law enforcement and they wanted someone who did not idolize the SOBs to be involved.

It's an interesting field, and there's more to it than you'd think, and I do keep my hand in and keep up to date on the consultation end, being unable to work directly in the field, but at least usefully having had that experience.

And so, ther

VETERAN

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:31 PM

Thanks I like learning something new.

I've heard some of the rumors about Blackwater and Khaki. Are there any 'good' security firms on the scale of Pinkerton or Blackwater out there?

The 3-man team description is interesting.
What about chauvers? Are they ever part of the security team or is that a different kind of setup?

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:53 PM

Huh. Interesting indeed.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, May 21, 2007 7:43 AM

On that scale, no - once you get past a certain size and organisation, any entity tends to serve it's own needs at the expense of it's assigned duties and that implosion happens much faster with security companies when they "go redline".

Then you basically have two directions it'll go.. complete and total criminality (DynCorp) or total incompetence (Wackenhut) but either way, expanding past a size where actual security and discipline can be fully maintained is the death knell.

The only option at that size and scale of operations is a private army, like Blackwater, but history has shown again and again that this will eventually blow up in your face, for if they are incompentent, they'll ruin you, and if they are competent, what's to stop them from doing anything they damned well please ?

Think about that, they have a near-monopoly on violence and expertise in carrying it out, and are beholden to no one save their employer, and that only for what can be PROVEN against them.

So, for example, is certain folks within blackwater wanted to have their way with your wife during the Katrina disaster, who's to stop em ? who's to stop em from doing anything when they overpower and outgun not only the police, but also the local guard and military units on site ?

You can surely see the potential for disaster looming in that picture, yes ?

So, in short, no - you won't find any "good" companies on that scale, the very nature of the business makes it impossible.

As for chauffers, most security specialists with enough interest and training to be interested do possess a chauffers license, I do, and so did many others - and for a one-off job, a single short term contract, sure, you can hire one of them for a nominal fee, but in all truth most chauffer personnel are responsible for the safety and integrity of the vehicle and to some degree the passengers within, and thus a lot of them do have some basic level of security-type training.

It's all in what you need, really - I don't do high profile work, so it's awfully rare that anyone I know in the biz would be driving a limo anyway, more often a delivery van or taxicab, if you have the correct licenses and are willing to pay the days manifest, you can easily aquire one from any cab company for a day if needed.

And since, yanno, I actually DO drive a cab, like I said, I keep my hand in the business a lil bit.

If you mean, like, the guy driving the newsvan ?
Far as I know they usually just pick whatever guy of the tech crew is willing to drive, and in a case where it may be more important for the security on-site guy to be behind the wheel, that can be finessed quite easily without blowing cover.

There used to be some halfway decent schools and classes for this sorta thing, but with the shift towards militarization of the work, not so much any more.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:14 AM

This is almost pathetically amusing, in light of the above posts.

Bear in mind that security personnel are not soldiers, and asking a loss prevention specialist or industrial safety specialist to do these things is like asking a delivery truck driver to perform a high speed chase and rundown, it's NOT what they are trained for, or paid for - and if you WANT someone to do these things, you find the right folk, properly trained for it, and you pay them accordingly!

If you are paying me to keep trespassers, thieves and vandals off your property, I can do that, sure - but I will neither chase them down for you, nor arrest them, and if a concerted terrorist assault is made on your premises, that's YOUR problem, cause at most I will be a mere stumbling block as I call in the cavalry, ain't trained for it, ain't paid to do it, and sure as hell ain't up to the task any more physically.

If they want a damn private army, they should hire one, but they're asking way too much of these guys on piss poor training and pathetic wages.

I don't blame the guards, I blame the company for allowing it's personnel to be so badly misused in positions they're not qualified for, and not capable of, just to try to make and save a buck.

-Frem
=====================
Original URL - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/
homeland_insecurity&printer=1;_ylt=AmkNeEml_uAqPGXj.PhttyGWwvIE
(spaced to avoid screen stretch)

Private guards a weak link in security
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago

Legions of ill-trained, low-paid private security guards are protecting tempting terrorist targets across the U.S.

Richard Bergendahl is one of them. He fights the war on terrorism in Los Angeles, protecting a high-rise office building for $19,000 a year. Down the block is an even taller skyscraper, identified by President Bush as a building chosen for a Sept. 11-style airplane attack.

Bergendahl, 55, says he often thinks: "Well, what am I doing here? These people are paying me minimum wage."

The security guard industry found itself involuntarily transformed after September 2001 from an army of "rent-a-cops" to protectors of the homeland. Yet many security officers are paid little more than restaurant cooks or janitors.

And the industry is governed by a maze of conflicting state rules, according to a nationwide survey by The Associated Press. Wide chasms exist among states in requirements for training and background checks. Tens of thousands of guard applicants were found to have criminal backgrounds.

"A security officer is ... not trained to be a G.I. Joe," said Paul Maniscalco, a senior research scientist at George Washington University.

More than five years after the 9/11 terror attacks, Maniscalco is helping to change the security guard culture. He recently developed an anti-terrorism computer course for shopping mall guards, who are being taught that they now have more concerns than rowdy teenagers and shoplifters.

The middle ground pay for security officers in 2006 was $23,620, according to a Labor Department survey. The low pay reflects cutthroat competition among security firms, who submit the lowest possible bids to win contracts. Lowball contracts also mean lower profit margins and less money for training and background checks for guards.

Some states require FBI fingerprint checks for every guard job applicant. Others let the industry police itself. The following states don't regulate the industry: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kentucky, Wyoming and Idaho. The city of Boise and many Idaho communities do regulate guards. Some states require background checks for company owners but not guards.

In states that keep such records, the AP found that more than 96,000 out of 1.3 million applicants, about 7.3 percent, were turned down — mostly, state officials said, for having criminal histories.

The most important number, however, can't be found: individuals convicted of serious crimes who were hired in states without background