Layers of Physical Security - Essay Example

Layers of Physical Security al Affiliation The concern for security is a topic of great concern, how reliable the security system depends on the planning that the involved institutions apply. This means that the duty of protection is not a task to be left to those with little knowledge. Over the years, physical security has been divided into layers from outside to inside. This division has been continuously changing and technology use has progressively changed the elements of security at each level. This paper is an exploration of this change. The thesis which forms the basis of the paper, and which has been proved in the end is that layers of physical security have developed with time but the basic need for security and the underlying concept at each level is the same. Layers of Physical Security Introduction Security is a great concern for the world today as it was so many years ago. This makes it a consideration for any government, institution, and individual. The problem of physical security is, therefore, an important topic. The traditional security system is continuously being improved by technology and civilization. Further, the rise of new threats, for example, the risk of fear assaults and terrorism, raises the issue of upgrading existing frameworks of physical security. In the meantime, viable physical security ought to be in view of central standards which minimize the risk of dangers to physical security (Modi, Patel, Borisaniya, Patel, & Rajarajan, 2012). Since the traditional means of securing territories no longer hold, there must be advancement in the forms of security with the utilization of technology. Since physical security takes various layers, the advancement of cutting edge physical security ought to incorporate these layers which entail building security, grounds security, access control frameworks, and border security (Newman, 2001). The present day physical security is inconceivable without the wide usage of technological advancements, which has been found to increase significantly the dependability of advanced security frameworks and minimize threats to the physical security framework. Then again, innovations frequently confront new dangers that fortify the more extensive implementation of new technologies, but the primary point in the advancement of a powerful physical security framework is the improvement of numerous layers of physical security (Modi et al., 2012). This paper is an exploration of the changes that have happened in the layers of security. The paper, therefore, explores traditional utilization of security layers and how this has been changed by technology, civilization and emergence of new threats to security. The paper is guided by the thesis that layers of physical security have developed with time, but the basic need for security and the underlying concept at each level is the same. Security has been an issue of concern since the time when man thought to be in apprehension of his or her life. Due to this perception, he needed to feel safe in terms of life, health and property. Before technological innovations came into the picture, the best way to be safe was either to bolt the entryways or contract somebody to secure oneself. Physical security comes in such a variety of structures (Stolfo, Bellovin, & Evans, 2011). From a simple new lock framework on the door to a multimillion dollar security alert framework are means of securing oneself and property. One thing is without a doubt individuals like to feel safe and not stressed with what may happen not far off. Physical security have comprised of security watches and bolted entryways for a very long time. At that point, the PC was developed and afterward security took an entire new bearing in life. Everything in security began to swing to electronic gear. As a rule, they got to be more solid than the ordinary gatekeeper who were untrained to be in a position to secure (Jurjens, 2011). Gatekeepers were and are today preventions more than anything. The initial layers are physical security to your property stretches out from the building to the territorial perimeter. These furthest properties of the business must be secured, for example, parking garages, stopping decks, walkways, and green ranges. The second layer is the external office. The external office is the dividers holding up the building; as such the dividers, entryways and windows bystanders and drivers see. The third layer is the inside. The inside is within the organization. This is the place rooms, workplaces and organization things are found. This is the spot where crooks need to reach. Put resources into a top-notch physical security framework that is prepared to secure all layers, keep robbers outside and ensure the workers within (Newman, 2001). Alongside counteracting intruders on the outside, a business ought to plan for gatecrashers within. Such intruders may be workers wanting to take what the organization has. The terrible part is that those representatives know where the information and the security gadgets are found. Security from the inside always tries not to let those crooks get the high ground. A decent security framework may keep those culprits from attaining to their objective. Another route is to restrict the number of individuals having access to secure records, vaults, and safes. Besides making sure to change passwords frequently and execute sound interior security forms around access to programming, information touchy records, rooms, workplaces, and other potential target office regions (Modi et al., 2012). Focusing on the basic principles of physical security, it is agreeable that the first layer in physical security is the perimeter security. This is the security that is achieved with fencing and securing a territory which requires to be protected. This, therefore, means that the first step in security is the erection of a perimeter fence. This has traditionally separated the territory to be protected from the rest of the world marking the boundaries and hence ensuring that no trespass is allowed. From long before civilization, people and used hedges and fences to secure their premises and homesteads from intrusion. Trespassers were kept away from private businesses by use of deep trenches and marked fences. In the modern society, this first layer of physical security can take different forms of perimeter security. Whereas the most common and simplest form of physical fencing still remain relevant, warning signs, simple barriers, trenches, and site lighting are becoming more and more popular. In fencing, a physical fence of any type, be it barbed wire, hedges, electric wires or even walls are erected along the perimeter (Weir, Douglas, Carruthers, & Jack, 2009). While using barriers, metal barriers and vehicle height restrictors are used to restrict unauthorized entry or trespass into a protected territory. This can also be achieved through trenches dug around the territory or lighting to indicate the boundary. However, lighting is only effective at night. This, therefore, means that a complementary method should be used to serve during the day. The purpose of the first layer of physical security has always determined its type and sophistication. For instance, a simple fence barrier, as used around homesteads traditionally, may just indicate a restriction from intrusion. This may be different when the security concern is at a higher stake in which case electric fences are used. This is what has been on the rise in the recent past with many people having high restrictions even around homesteads. This implies that the perimeter fence, as a first layer physical security is meant to serve two main purposes. First, it protects the territory from the outside and secondly, it serves to warn potential intruders that the territory is restricted. Monitoring the perimeter through surveying by the security service is an addition to this level of security which serves to enhance its effectiveness (Tun, Yu, Haley, & Nuseibeh, 2010). The second layer in physically securing a territory comprises of the mechanical protection of the territory and buildings. Traditionally, this has entailed the erection of entry barriers in the form of locks, doors, gates and other forms of mechanical protectors. Throughout the world, a point or several points along a fence were set aside as the entry locations. This meant that territories had doors and gates through which entry was easily monitored and controlled by the security personnel (Jurjens, 2011). Although the use of locks today is becoming a rather inconvenient mode of physical security, they are still relevant especially where the security threat is not as serious. This involves securing stores at home or animal sheds for the farmers. Further, locks are inconvenient in buildings where a large number of people require to have access to the building interior. This is because keeping on opening and locking the doors become a problem to most people. To secure building in such instances, electronic access controls are applied in place of physical locks. Recognition systems are also used to allow only the authorized individuals to gain access to premises. These technological innovations, including the fingerprints and eye recognition systems are the most modernized forms of second layer physical security that go an extra mile to secure territory through identity authentication. These modern systems are also important in keeping the memory of the individuals who access the territory and hence they can be traced (Jurjens, 2011). To effectively solve the menace of security, physical security systems have other layers. The third layer of this system is aimed at detecting and recognizing intrusion. Traditionally, intruders and visitors were required to verbally identify themselves before entry I to a restricted area. Further, the people who were authorized to enter into an area had documents and tools that identified them as authorized. Security As observed in the second layer of the physical security system, the modern forms of security has recognition and memory capabilities. This helps the systems to link with the third layer which through the artificial intelligence detect and recognize incidences of attempted or actual intrusion. The third layer is therefore concerned with the alert system which on detection of intrusion triggers the alarm. Motion detectors in areas that are secured are also part of this layer of physical security. When the intrusion detectors identify a security breach, alarms are triggered and the security systems are notified of the intrusion. In more advanced situations, motion pictures and location maps are obtained indicating the details of the intrusion. This allows the security personnel to respond appropriately, timely and effectively. The fourth layer of physical security system entails continuous monitoring of the territory. Traditionally, security servicemen were deployed all over the protected territory to monitor movements and intrusion. This was in an effort to ensure that there is a round-the-clock surveillance of the premises and that no intrusion was possible without the notice of the security systems. Towers were erected to provide a clear view of the boundaries and monitor activities within and around the premises. Today, with the technological development, monitoring is more sophisticated. Instead of the deployed servicemen, video monitoring is used to continuously monitor activities and movements. This kind of monitoring minimizes the use of personnel since only a few peoples are needed to monitor the motion pictures and trigger alarms in case of intrusion or security breach (Jurjens, 2011). Figure 1. Secure Environment Figure 2. Physical Security Layers While still developing the security framework, it is important to consider that security officers can be allowed to operate with similar powers to those of the police. In such a circumstance, contingent upon the force conceded to security officers they activities may vary reliably. In fact, security officers who are not conceded with the police and capture controls commonly cant capture individuals or, to put it all the more exactly, to take them into authority. Rather, they can constrain the activities of people who offense patients or health awareness experts or whose activities undermine to life, well-being and property of individuals and open security. In any case, these security officers cant capture wrongdoers, yet they can find them and call the police which ought to direct the capture methodology if essential (Newman, 2001). It is critical to lay accentuation on the way that security officers, who are not allowed with the police and capture forces, ought to regard rights and freedoms of wrongdoers. Also, they ought to guarantee that wrongdoers, in the event that they are found, ought to be securely passed on to the police. Conclusion Physical security is by far the most common and undoubtedly the oldest form of security. Despite taking different formats, governments, institutions and individuals have traditionally used the same basic method to protect lives and property. The basic method can be significantly divided into four layers starting from the outermost to the innermost. This, however, does not necessarily mean that change has not been part of the security system. Through civilization and embracement of technology, the layers of security have taken different development routes. Although within the same layers, the traditionally used methods of securing lives and property are continuously being replaced with new sophisticated and more reliable methods. For instance, although fencing still remains relevant in today’s security, erecting electrified fences enhances the reliability of the security. This, therefore, supports the thesis that layers of physical security have developed with time, but the basic need for security and the underlying concept at each level is the same. References Jurjens, J. (2011). Automated security hardening for evolving UML models. 2011 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 986–988. doi:10.1145/1985793.1985968 Modi, C., Patel, D., Borisaniya, B., Patel, A., & Rajarajan, M. (2012). A survey on security issues and solutions at different layers of Cloud computing. The Journal of Supercomputing. doi:10.1007/s11227-012-0831-5 Newman, E. (2001). Human Security and Constructivism. International Studies Perspectives, 2, 239–251. doi:10.1111/1528-3577.00055 Stolfo, S., Bellovin, S. M., & Evans, D. (2011). Measuring security. IEEE Security and Privacy, 9, 60–65. doi:10.1109/MSP.2011.56 Tun, T. T., Yu, Y., Haley, C., & Nuseibeh, B. (2010). Model-based argument analysis for evolving security requirements. In SSIRI 2010 - 4th IEEE International Conference on Secure Software Integration and Reliability Improvement (pp. 88–97). doi:10.1109/SSIRI.2010.36 Weir, C. S., Douglas, G., Carruthers, M., & Jack, M. (2009). User perceptions of security, convenience and usability for ebanking authentication tokens. Computers and Security, 28, 47–62. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2008.09.008 Read More