This can be done by the creation of gazettes that limit the mandate of private security companies to access information on a particular case. Moreover, the state should be able to share information with the private sector in case of a security threat. For instance, airport security may be mandated to stop a person as mandated by the state. Such collaborations make it easier to handle security threats. Another role of the state on private firms is to ensure proper certification of the practice. An organization should be valid and legally created to be able to serve in the industry. Raphael (2004) also points out that the state should ensure operations of private companies are regulated and specified. For instance, a private company may be provided with a mandate to use firearms only in extremely necessary situations.
Private security firms in charge of institutions should be major areas to be targeted by the state. For instance, airports should be handled with greater regards from the state. The state should have intensified focus on private security firms in airports. However, this mandated should be limited to avoid instances of abuse on human rights. Regardless of this requirement, national security should be a priority (Noam, 2005). The author, however, is keen to assert that institutions such as medical and educational facilities should be approached with caution considering the sensitivity of people in these institutions (Noam, 2005).
An area that should be provided with maximum state control is boarder control. Private security firms with the responsibility of securing across boarder transports should be completely transparent to the government on the nature of their business and provide evidence to support the claims.
One proposed Act is the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR). This act is aimed at managing the contraction of private security firms. In an