Looking Back – 5-11-09 , Video Escorts

 Nearly every morning I start my computer time by looking at information from Google about what happened in my blog in the previous 24 hours. Google, and blogspot.com is a Google service, provides interesting pieces of analytical data about my blog readership. One item of particular interest is the top ten blog posts each day. As you would expect, most of those posts were from the last couple of days, but with 16 years of publishing this blog, every once-in-a-while, a blog post from ancient history rises into that list. 

Today, a blog post from May 11th, 2009, Video Escorts, made the list. This was a discussion about the use of video surveillance systems with sophisticated analytics tools to perform the required escort of uncleared personnel about a facility. While the post includes a fairly down-in-the-weeds discussion of CFATS regulatory requirements, many of those considerations are still applicable to unregulated security issues. 

There are two other interesting things about this post related to reader comments. The first is not visible. I had a number of comments submitted to this offering ‘video escort’ services that had nothing to do with security issues. This is one of the reasons that I moderate the comments published to my blog posts. 

There is a reader comment published with this post. It comes from a recognized video surveillance expert, John Honovich. One of the fun things about writing this blog over the years has been the number of intelligent subject matter experts that I have had the privilege of talking with about facility security topics. They have helped educate me about the wide variety of topics that blogs like this are forced to cover. 

Reader Comments – Vendor Questions – Temporary Video Surveillance

I started this blog back in 2007, primarily to look at issues related to chemical facility security. Over the years I have had any number of security vendors approach me about their latest and greatest contribution to chemical facility security. Generally speaking, I do not endorse products, I just do not have the resources to properly evaluate some new security tech. I also do not do advertising on this site (I have allowed Google to maintain a small ad on the site which they sell) as I do not want to have to deal with the issues of imagined influence.

But every once-in-a-while a vendor approaches with a piece of security technology that bears discussing from a conceptual point of view. I received one such approach (via LinkedIn, of course) today from a company that is selling portable video surveillance systems. Now video surveillance systems are not new, I even have one looking at my front yard (long story that).

The innovation here is that one of their products consists of a telescoping mast on a small trailer. Multiple PTZ cameras along with directionally controlled lights sit atop the mast and a solar system provides local power to a battery system in the base of the trailer. The whole thing communicates with the Cloud via a cell phone connection and the customer accesses the system via a VPN connection. Motion detection systems allow the system to focus lights and cameras on movement around the installation and automated alerting messages keep the customer apprised of problems on site. You can even get a loudspeaker to give orders to intruders.

Video surveillance systems are a standard part of any facility security program. For the most part chemical facilities are going to mainly rely on hard-wired systems, they are generally more reliable. And more and more of these systems are being equipped with cell phone communication systems, so is this really a viable security tool for fixed facilities?

I can think of any number of temporary situations where a system like this might be a valuable part of a security program. Do you have construction going on near a sensitive area of the facility? One or two of these could be a valuable tool for keeping an eye on contractors that are not cleared for unaccompanied access. Do you have a tree down across a perimeter fence? One of these could provide supplemental coverage while the tree is removed, and the fence repaired. Do you have a major weather disaster? These could give you security coverage during recovery.

If I were designing these systems, I would provide for the addition of chemical detectors that tied into the communication system. This would allow for monitoring at chemical incidents where it would be helpful to be able to detect and monitor chemical releases while observing the incident scene. One last thing, for use in and around chemical facilities, these are going to have to be designed for operations in Class 1 Div 1 areas where flammable atmospheres may exist.

Video Surveillance in the Rain

It has been a while since I have mentioned John Honovich and his IP Video Market web site (www.ipvm.com). Long time readers might recall that John’s site is a very informative location for unbiased information on all things associated with video surveillance. He recently posted a report (membership required, sorry) looking at comparing the operations of three different video analytic systems in the rain.

Most modern facility security systems use some sort of video surveillance system. Larger installations are shifting to video analytics to reduce the manpower necessary to adequately track outputs from a large number of video cameras. A proper assessment of the adequacy of such a system must not only take into account standard daylight and night-time operations but also a wide variety of expected weather conditions.

The IPVM.com report provides some interesting test results for detecting both personnel and vehicle line crossing (a typical video analytics task) at ranges from 20 feet to over 200 feet from the camera in moderate to heavy rain. The tests were conducted in a parking lot so a lot of the issues associated with vegetation in the target area were eliminated.

While the missed target data on the three systems tested vary substantially, I was really surprised that their test did not have a single false positive. John’s tester did not mention this in the report, but I wonder if the sensitivity of the system shouldn’t have been tweaked up just a bit; an occasional false positive in these adverse conditions might have increased the target detection rate.

What is important in John’s report is that target detection distances are significantly impaired by rain events. Any infantryman knows that rainy days favor the attacker and this just goes to show that that fact is not just due to cold, wet, miserable folks being less than attentive. Even video surveillance systems are affected.

Earth First vs Security Cameras

It seems that the lowly but ubiquitous security camera has attracted the ire of the loosely knit environmental activist organization Earth First. They recently announced a year-long contest to see who could disable the most security cameras. It doesn’t appear that there is any specific environmental complaint linked to this contest; just a general anarchistic response to a sense of lost privacy. Or maybe the cameras are interfering with the successful completion of other Earth First related environmental actions.

The organization (a very grand term for this loosely organized collection of activists) seems to have spent some time and effort on this contest. They have posted a very interesting article on their news site providing some details on various techniques that can be used to attack these cameras. Particular attention has been targeted at traffic cameras.

There was a brief post last week over on the Association of  State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) blog about this contest.  Reprinted from the WaterISAC Pro Weekly newsletter, the author notes:

“Locations that have experienced higher levels of environmental activism or violence should evaluate the potential threat posed by this contest and the actions of other ideologically similar groups. In addition, areas where new development is taking place, such as the controversial Key Stone Pipeline, or that may otherwise be considered environmentally sensitive may be at greater risk.”

The cameras at greatest risk, of course, are those that exist outside of a security perimeter. They would certainly be more susceptible to attack than those on the protected side. In fact, I would suggest that any camera attacked within the perimeter indicates a major security breach and may be an indicator of an insider with sympathies with Earth First or one of its related radical environmental organizations.

Any such ‘attacks’ should be reported to the local police, but efforts should be made to stop news organizations from writing about specific attacks to deny the perpetrators gaining credit in this contest.

Video Surveillance at Chemical Facilities

I got an interesting email from John Honovich, the owner of IPVM.com a site focused on all things about video surveillance and one of the few independent commentators on that field. He wrote to tell me that they were preparing to do a blog post about video surveillance at chemical facilities and was interested to know if I had any specific blog posts about the subject that might be of interest to their readers. A quick search of this site showed that just about every post on the topic was based on something that John had written on his site. So maybe it’s time that I addressed this issue on my own.

My Background

I have one small bit of personal practical experience with video surveillance systems dating from about 2004. I was on a plant security committee that was directed to work with a contractor on installing a video surveillance system at the specialty chemical facility where I worked. This was post-911 and pre-CFATS so there was no regulatory guidance or requirements that we had to deal with; management had decided that we needed some sort of video surveillance to enhance the security at our plant.

Looking at Camera Placement

We quickly looked at the budget we had available and it was quickly clear that we would not be able to set up a system to observe the facility perimeter since we could only afford about a half-dozen point-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras. We only had two storage tanks that contained chemicals with potentially significant off-site effects so we decided that those were our possible terrorist targets. We also decided that, since an accidental release was more likely at our facility than a terrorist attack, we wanted camera locations that would be of help in our response to that type of incident.

Our major toxic release hazard was stored in a stand-alone tank farm alongside the rail-spur within the fence line; that spur usually had at least one full railcar of the same high-risk chemical parked next to the tank farm. A nearby pipe-bridge provided an ideal vantage point for observing that tank farm, the rail spur and the rail gate at the backend of the property. We also included appropriate lighting for that area in our plan.

Our other toxic release chemical storage tank was in the middle of a small tank farm with about twenty storage tanks. Try as we might we couldn’t find camera location that would allow us to see more than a small section of the tank. Since the EPA worst-case-scenario for that tank only barely included an off-site release we opted instead for coverage of the off-loading facility where tank wagons of that (and other hazardous chemicals) were off-loaded into the tank farm.

Two operational vehicle-gates were obvious areas where we wanted video surveillance coverage as was the area where we parked tank wagons waiting for unloading or for pick-up of their full loads for transport.

Observation

Video surveillance systems are worthless unless someone is watching them. Our five cameras were hard wired into a system with two dedicated monitoring stations with controls for the operation of the cameras. One was at the front gate where we had our single security guard working eight-hours a day. The other was in the plant control room that was operational 24/7.

Finally, software was installed in the plant manager’s computer, the production manager’s computer and in a computer located in another building on the site that was well separated from the production area. All three of these computers were connected to the system via the company intranet and each had a priority override for the controls for the operation of the cameras. These access points were designed more for safety and emergency response purposes than for security.

Use

We never did have a security incident at the plant while I worked there so the system was never really used as part of the counter-terrorism security system. Management did use one of the gate camera feeds in a termination case to document an employee’s unauthorized absence from the plant. One small spill response incident was followed on the video system and it really helped in the after action review for that incident. Other than that it was somewhat useful as a tool for supervisors to keep track of employees and provided some amusement for people in the control room.

Is this a typical installation? I really don’t know, but I suspect that it has many things in common with many smaller chemical facilities. Low budgets and complex facility layouts are going to be two factors that are going to come into play into many of these facilities. Environmental, health, safety and security (EHSS) managers are going to have to leverage their safety considerations and budgets to make these video surveillance installations worthwhile. If they can merge the coverage with areas that are of concern to operations, then the facility may be able to have a video surveillance system that covers a significant amount of the areas of security concern.

New Video Surveillance Book

John Honovich over at IPVM.com has just updated his ebook on video surveillance systems. As he did with the first edition of this ebook in 2008, he is making the book available free of charge. Why? According to his IPVM web site he is doing it for three reasons:

• Ensure that a free, non-vendor resource is widely available that helps the community learn about critical issues.
• Make it easier for those wanting to get started with professional surveillance systems.
• Introduce our world leading research and PRO member service to new people.

For  security managers, particularly for ones that have a limited security background, I think that the first two reasons are the important ones. John obviously wants to promote the 3^rd because that is one of the ways that his organization survives.

This book will not make you a video surveillance system integrator and it certainly won’t allow you to install your own system. What it will do is to allow you to talk intelligently with a system integrator, understand the issues involved with selecting, installing and maintaining this important class of security systems, and make an informed decision about whatever type of video surveillance system your facility actually buys.

Full Disclosure: John is one of the people that have made financial donations to this site. All such donations are appreciated, but have no impact on what I write or recommend in this blog. I am a PRO member on his site and I follow many of the interesting discussions on his LinkedIn.com group.

Reader Comment: TSA Video Surveillance Report

I got a real nice response to yesterday’s TSA Video Surveillance blog post from the President of SightLogix. The comment is posted to the original blog and is well worth reading. The interesting point that he makes (from my point of view) is that the un-redacted TSA video surveillance report (and others like it) is posted on the “TSA’s Secure Webboard”. This is apparently a restricted information (SSI I presume) sharing site that is accessible to registered Airport Security Coordinators; appropriate as that’s who needs this type of information about these security measures.

The interesting comment from him is that he (personally) does not have access to the un-redacted TSA report about the testing of the installation of his company’s equipment. I understand that there is a whole ‘need to know’ issue here, but business decisions and equipment recommendation need to be made based upon reports like. Oh well, I would hope that someone in his organization has access to this web site or was at least allowed to review the report before it was posted.

Now the other point; the ASC web site is great for airport people. But this is not an issue restricted just to airports. Any number of other critical infrastructure facilities have boundaries that need to be surveilled. The information from this testing would be a great piece of information for security managers at these sites as well. I would think that TSA would be able to find a way to share the information with other TSA monitored security programs (a small list to be sure) like railroad facilities.

DHS is going to have to be involved in making this information available to the rest of the non-transportation facilities that have federally mandated perimeter security requirements like CFATS and MTSA. The information about boundary security is applicable to almost any type facility.  

Design Perimeter Surveillance

The folks at SightLogix, a provider of video surveillance systems, have an interesting post on their corporate blog. It describes a system, SightSurvey®, based on Google Maps® that allows for the rapid initial design of a perimeter video surveillance system. A quick look at the literature (data sheet and reference guide) available on their site as well as a brief video make this look like an interesting concept. Using a overhead view of the facility, their system claims to allow you to place a variety of cameras around the perimeter, judge coverage overlaps and dead zones, and to determine the initial settings for the cameras selected. Their claim about ‘dead zones’ is a little misleading; it only allows you to calculate the dead zone from directly beneath the camera out to where you can first see the ground along the line of site. While this dead zone is important it is simply a calculation based upon the height of the camera and the angle of the camera to the ground. It does not take into account any obstacles or variations in terrain elevation. Given the limitations of Google Maps one can’t expect more. This does look like it would be a valuable tool to establish initial design parameters. I would be suspicious, however, of anyone that based a system quote on the out-put of this program without taking a walk along the perimeter to look at the actual problems and limitations that would have to be dealt with on the ground. The other thing that this program would probably be good for is the documentation of an installed system. The annotation of camera positions and fields of view would be very valuable if it was updated with measured dead zones. Including the ability to update the diagram with post-installation measured data would be very valuable. I would assume that the SightSurvey tool only allows for the use of SightLogix ‘SightSensors’ since it doesn’t say otherwise on their web site. I understand the market reasons for that limitation, but to be truly useful this tool would address other manufacturer’s camera systems and other intrusion detection systems. Over all, this does sound like (site unseen) an interesting and potentially valuable site security planning tool. I would certainly like to hear from people that have actually used the SightSurvey tool.

Basic Video Surveillance

Long time readers of this blog will be familiar with the name John Honovich. John has web site, IPVideoMarket.info, that deals with the details of video surveillance. He has started a new service that looks very promising for security managers wanting to learn more about the basics of video surveillance technology, a video surveillance training program. The only drawback to the service is that it is not a free service, but the corporate membership rate is only $299 per year, so it isn’t much of a drawback drawback especially since it provides full access to the information on John’s site. John uses a combination of podcasts and printed material in the training program. I just finished listening to the first of three podcasts in the “Basics for Using Video Surveillance” program. It was an interesting 52-minute conversation about “Basic Uses of Video Surveillance” and it covered:

Different approaches to live surveillance monitoring Types of alarm monitoring Examples of conducting investigations Common number of cameras being used Common locations and types of cameras being used Privacy issues in using video surveillance Unrealistic or science fiction approaches to video surveillance

It included a very good discussion about when and why facilities may or may not decide to have someone constantly monitoring the feeds from their security cameras. I especially appreciated the discussion of video quality and why it isn’t practical to have 100% perfect videos throughout the day. There are two additional podcasts in this introductory program; Video Surveillance Products Basics and Basics on Cost and Value of Video Surveillance. John includes links to written reports on both subjects for further detailed information. Once again I have to recommend another of John’s products. The podcasts are interesting conversations instead of lectures. Combined with the links to reports on information covered in the podcast the training value for this material is high. Once again, John is not trying to make anyone a video surveillance technician or integrator with this program, but he is providing valuable information to someone who will be dealing with these professionals.

Security System Webcast

I got my weekly email from SecurityDirectorNews.com updating me on news from that site. Included in the email was a brief advertisement for a free webcast that will discuss a new trend in security systems, a unified security platform. This is the integration of automated access control and video surveillance systems. The Genetec sponsored webcast will be on November 18th at 1:00 PM EST. What really caught my attention was the presence of John Honovich on the panel that will be discussing the developments in this area. Long time readers of this blog will be well familiar with John’s name from my frequently mentioning it as a source of information on video surveillance systems. Webcasts like this are frequently nothing more than infomercials, but with John on the panel I am convinced that this is more likely to be a real information exchange. According to the webcast registration page the discussion will cover:

“Where access and CCTV integration is headed “The benefits of a unified security platform for vendors, integrators and end users “The enabling networking and IT technologies that make unification possible”

Security managers at high-risk chemical facilities that employ, or are considering employing, an automated access control system should probably watch this web cast. It should provide some valuable information that could impact the design of that system.

Video Quality in Public Safety Conference

Yesterday the DHS Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), in partnership with the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) program within the U.S Department of Commerce posted a notice in the Federal Register that they would be holding the second Video Quality in Public Safety (VQiPS) conference on September 1st in Boulder, CO. The conference will provide stakeholders with the opportunity to discuss their successes and the challenges related to video quality and interoperability. With emergency services increasingly utilizing video systems to provide detailed information to guide their response it is becoming more important that they have a voice in the establishment of video standards, especially in regards to the issue of interoperability. This is why last year the DHS OIC and DOC PSCR formed the VQiPS Working Group, which is composed of volunteers from each public safety discipline. According to yesterday’s notice the conference will also review the work of the VQiPS Working Group. The Working Group coordinates efforts among organizations and agencies that are developing video standards for their own use. Future outputs of the Working Group will include a glossary of shared terminology related to video quality, video equipment, and specifications to aid public safety agencies in becoming more effective. There is no cost to attend this conference and you can register on-line. Additional conference details can be found at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/psvq/vqips/. Or you can contact Cuong Luu, DHS OIC by email (VOIP_Working_Group@sra.com).

Video Surveillance Project Management

Long time readers of this blog will be well familiar with the name of John Honovich. He has provided me with a lot of good information on video surveillance systems and maintains an excellent web site packed with video surveillance information. One of the things that I really appreciate about John’s information is that he isn’t afraid to pass on information from a variety of other sources. In last week’s email listing of new information he provided a link to an article on CSOOnline.com about video surveillance project planning. This project planning article by Jason Crowling is not a step-by-step outline of how to plan for a video surveillance project. It does point out a number of pieces of information that will help the security manager to understand the bidding and project definition process. As with all of the other articles that I have recommended on the subject, this is far from an exhaustive review of all of the relevant factors. I do think that any security manager that is not well experienced in working with video surveillance systems should add this article to a pre-bid reading list. It will help to explain some of the exasperating issues that will have to be dealt with in the competitive bidding process.

Another CCTV Information Source

Since video security systems are certainly going to be a major component of an site security plan I try to keep an eye on developments in that field. Readers know that I have frequently mentioned John Honovich’s web site. Another source of valuable information has been Doktor Jon out of the UK. He has offered his informative comments on a number of issues on this blog. Recently he has published his first newsletter and was kind enough to send me a copy. It is a little different set of information than provided by John, but I think it will be a valuable resource for security managers looking to install and manage security cameras. Jon is making this newsletter available on-line. And he has promised to keep his eye out for issues specific to chemical facilities.

Video Surveillance Demo Videos

Long time readers of this blog are probably aware of how much I admire the work that John Honovich is doing over at IPVideoMarket.Info. He is providing a unique source of information about video surveillance tools and applications. Last week he gave advance notice about a new service that he is developing, a catalogue of video surveillance demonstration videos. He is making a strong case for the video surveillance industry to make a large number of demonstration videos available to potential consumers of their products. He believes that making these videos available on-line will make it easier for the customers to understand what is available and how it can be used. This is especially important for high-risk facilities that are adding security systems as part of their site security plan implementation. John’s formal demo video catalogue is not due out until March 23rd, but just the page where he describes the potential benefit for customers and suppliers he provides a quick list of readily available demonstration videos. Personally I enjoyed the short 4 minute YouTube video by Ioimage (link about midway down the page) about how to set-up one of their systems for perimeter monitoring. It reminded me a lot of setting up a range card for crew served weapons in the Army. Once again, I cannot recommend John’s site high enough. If you think that a video surveillance system is in your facility’s future, or you are having problems with your current system, this is a good place to get a basic education and to find the links to just about any supplier in that industry.

Reader Comments 12-26-08

Blogs about video surveillance systems always attract the most responses. Today we look at a comment from Ryan Taylor, CEO, TRUSYS about last weeks blog; "Using Video for Detecting Perimeter Violations". His comments are longer than most, but seem to be well worth reading. You can find his complete comments at the bottom of the referenced blog by clicking on the comments link. He notes that the figures quoted in that blog for false positives (175 or more per week) are completely unacceptable from his point of view. He states that his company recently tested a system with a false positive rate of 1 false positive per 38 actual detections. That sounds pretty impressive to me. He also briefly discusses options for doing the ‘analytics’ in the individual cameras rather than in a central computer. He also mentions web based software rather than loading the analytics software on facility computers, noting that this allows for remote maintenance and adjustments. The more we talk about using video analytics for intrusion detection, the more it becomes obvious that this is not yet mature technology. Facilities that want to use this technological fix to replace a large guard force need to keep that in mind. This certainly appears to be an area a facility security manager should approach carefully.

Reader Comment 12-24-08

I got a quick response from John Honovich to Wednesday’s blog (see: “Using Video for Detecting Perimeter Violations”). As always he was appreciative of the mention of his site in the blog (it is free advertising after all). He includes some advice for security mangers thinking about using video analytics: “My general recommendation for security managers is to be very careful when selecting video analytics. This technology suffers from incredible overselling. A lot of security managers have horror stories as a result. I hope Nick's article helped to dispel the notion that video analytics are magic. You need to be very careful about selecting video analytic systems, and for managers of chemical facilities you may need to use multiple analytic technologies in combination.” As he always does, John wanted me to let everyone know that he is willing to take questions (jhonovich@ipvidemarket.info) from people working in chemical facility security. It’s not just because he is a nice guy (and he’s always been helpful to me), he notes that there is some self-interest involved; “It helps me as well better understand the challenges of security managers.” I urge anyone that has questions about video surveillance to take John up on his kind offer.

Follow-up on ‘Doktor Jon’

After I posted yesterday’s blog (see: “More Reader Responses from 10-31-08 Blog”) I got an email from Doktor Jon. He wanted to clear up my confusion about “a British outfit (company? Individual? I am not really sure) Doktor John”. The DoktorJon.co.UK website is the work of a single person, Jon. And a very busy person he must be, because he claims to have 1600 pages on his site (I’m not verifying that number, I’ll take his word). He provided some more information about his Viper program:

“The whole VIPER concept is very specifically aimed at optimising images for possible Forensic Surveillance or evidential use, and to that end, it has generated quite a bit of interest amongst some in the Law Enforcement community.”

He also provided a .PDF version of a one-page sample Viper report. The example is apparently abbreviated somewhat since a typical report runs to about three pages. This appears like this may be a valuable service. It would certainly be better to have the photo surveillance system optimized before a picture from the system had to be used to track down an intruder that had made off with a couple containers of chemical weapon precursors. One caveat; this system is designed to optimize a stationary camera watching a relatively fixed location (security door or gate for example). Jon does have a version (Viper 4) for moveable cameras, but it is designed to optimize the ‘parked’ position of the camera. Even that is for fixed location within the scan area of that camera. In any case, this seems like an interesting service. Submitting camera data for evaluation (and applying the suggested changes) would certainly be a show of diligence that should be impressive to security system evaluators (DHS inspectors, insurance companies and the like).

More Reader Responses from 10-31-08 Blog

I’ve had two more readers respond to my blog on video surveillance (see: “Video Surveillance Book – 2nd Edition”), one via email and one posted on the blog site. E-mail from Mike The email came in from Mike at cctvcrfew.co.uk. This isn’t the first time that Mike has responded to a video surveillance posting. This time he pointed me to an interesting article at SecurityInfoWatch.com about a video surveillance evaluation site. It seems that a British outfit (company? Individual? I am not really sure) Doktor John has developed a tool (VIPER, Video Image Performance Evaulation Report) to evaluate your existing video surveillance system. Well, not really, what he does do is to look at a JPG image from your fixed position cameras and provide an assessment of how the image could be improved. The improvement could be as simple as a focus or lighting change, to a lens change, a camera location change or just plain ‘get a new camera’. This is not really a system evaluation since there is no on-site visit to make sure that your system is looking where it should be. The evaluation is done in the UK, but that isn’t a major problem since the JPG file is emailed to him. The DoktorJohn web site does not give any prices but does provide this information:

“As this service is only available on request, there is a nominal fee for producing a report on each image submitted, although if you would like to give it a try, you can always submit a single picture file for assessment free of charge. If possible, JPEG images should be restricted to no more than 200Kb in size, although larger files can be forwarded subject to prior approval.”

For those interested you can email Doktor John at http://www.doktorjon.co.uk/contactdj.html Comment Posted by Ron Ron posted this comment:

“Thanks to this post I found John's ebook.”

John Honovich will be very happy to hear that. Actually, I appreciate the feedback too. It is always nice to know that I am providing some service to my readers. It really is the only pay that I am getting for this blog.

Reader Comment – 10-31-08

John Honovich, the author of the Video Surveillance ebook that I reviewed last week (see: “Video Surveillance Book – 2nd Edition”), posted a comment on that review. Of course he appreciated the free publicity for this free e-book, but he also had this observation:

“I think you make a very good point about it not providing enough information on design or installation. In the next edition, I will definitely add chapters specific to that. While I talk about design throughout, I definitely need to provide a focused section explaining the basics.”

If John brings the same level of attention and expertise to a basic tutorial on design and installation, the next edition of this book will be even more valuable security managers at high-risk chemical facilities looking to implement their first DHS site security plan.