Talk:Physical security

Untitled

For discussion on the proposed merger with Central Station, please see its talk page.

---

Physical Security is the protection of personnel, hardware, programs, networks, and data from physical circumstances and events that could cause serious losses or damage to an enterprise, agency, or institution. This includes protection from fire, natural disasters, burglary, theft, vandalism, and terrorism.

Actually, this is more like Business Continuity Planning, in which Physical security plays a role. I agree absolutely - more needs to be added to the article about physical protections against fires, floods, or other disasters. Current emphasis of the article is preventing unauthorized access by intruders, but you (whoever you are who responded) are right that there is more to physical security than just that. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

examples

in the examples Section only one Firm is mentioned, but at least two of its competitiors have wikipedia pages. those should also be named! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.4.156 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Island

If I have an small island, then its water all around then it will be physical security because it will be difficult for people to come there, because they want walk, they must swim or use boat or chopper. If I have hungry crocodile in water around island it will be more security. Look picture:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HIBERNIA2.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sealand_fortress.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_platform.jpg

Hello, I do not think that this merge is a good idea at all. No matter what you want to call (Physical Security) whether it be hardware, software, residential or commercial we are still talking about a (Central Station,) not a moat. Security is not the only systems that are monitored by a (Central Station.) There are also fire alarms, building temperature, low water, building controls, and a million things. If anything, the meaning of (Central Station) should be expanded to include all of the other things.

Yes and no. You can still have physical security without a Central Station. Central Station is just one of many possible solutions (a rather expensive one at that). This page should not force the reader to assume that it is the only solution.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I personally do not see any reason for the two headings to be merged. I cannot even see the comparison the two topics have with each other. I am a new contributor so maybe I am overlooking the "wikipedia" protocol or some other reason for the proposed merge. Anyone want to comment?

user dss311

• Seems to me that Central Station (Alarm Monitoring Center) has some data that could be used to this article's benefit, but it should still not be merged, as it is an implementation of physical security. If anything, Central Station (Alarm Monitoring Center) should be marked as a stub, and that would be the end of that. -- N3X15 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with N3X15, Central Station (Alarm Monitoring Center) should be left as a stub. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I do not think that this merge is a good idea at all. No matter what you want to call (Physical Security) whether it be hardware, software, residential or commercial we are still talking about a (Central Station,). Security is not the only systems that are monitored by a (Central Station.) There are several others such as fire alarms, building temperature, low water, building controls, and a million others. If anything, the meaning of (Central Station) should be expanded to include all of the other things that report to them. Eli 6/4/04 Phx.

I also disagree completely. Central Station is just one of many possible implementations of physical security. It is not the only solution.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Article structure

I think the article should be about concepts/principles of physical security, not about specific solutions or attempt to become a comprehensive list of physical security technologies and techniques (there are simply too many). An entire book could be written on the many and varied methods; and yet this article invites solutions without consideration of the environment, costs, esthetics, or other factors that affect stakeholder decisions. This article needs to be protected from those who would attempt to use this to advertise specific security products and services. IMO, Central Station is just another form of solution, but is not required in all cases. Home security can utilize many of the same basic principles used by banks, large businesses and other sensitive facilities; but there are cost-benefit tradeoffs to consider in both business and personal security situations. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note that most security techniques also have inherent vulnerabilities, so their effectiveness must be balanced against cost. For example, an eight foot tall fence crowned in barbed wire is more effective than a three-foot tall one without the barbed wire, but the bigger fence costs considerably more and may not be as attractive to the end user. A homeowner might be satisfied with the three-foot fence or even a hedgerow, but a copy of a prison facility probably would not. So each technique must be evaluated for its cost-effectiveness. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also (as pointed out by another commenter), I concur that physical security must not be limited just to unauthorized access of personnel, but also the protection of vital assets from disasters like fires, floods, or other disasters. However, recovery of assets (like vital information) falls under the topic of Business Continuity Planning so the topic of Physical Security should be bounded.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there may be legal ramifications to utilizing certain security techniques (such as video surveillence, mantraps, or armed response) that should be discussed. Therefore, this article NEEDS WORK!.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Security company

Does not add much beyond what exists already in Physical security GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with what GorillaWarfare says, and also the Security company is very poorly written and not well sourced. If there are no objections I am inclined to redirect Security company to Physical security, and if either GorillaWarfare or anyone else thinks there is content worth merging then obviously they can do so, but I don't see anything there which will be missed if it isn't merged. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Since in eight days nobody has objected to the proposal, I have made the redirect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I object to the proposal and didn't comment here earlier as I didn't have proper access to my computer. I disagree that it doesn't add much beyond what's in this article and that this article would be related/overlap enough to warrant it being the merge-target page. Security company is about security in the sense of the protection from (e.g. physical or property&financial) harm including on collective levels such as the nation and the world community. See: security. Furthermore the access and cyber aspects of it are not constrained to physical unauthorized access. Undid the redirect. However I agree on the article being not particularly well written and will try to improve it over time: the references already included have quite a bit of content that could be used to expand and improve the article. --Fixuture (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)