Would You Install Detection Devices In Each Outbuilding On A Site Or Would You Only Defend Approaches?
Would You Install Detection Devices In Each Outbuilding – We’d tend to consider the question in terms of deter, detect and delay, building an onion skin of intrusion detection starting at the perimeter.
Much will depend on how security conscious your client is, the value of items installed in outbuildings and the overall risk intrusion might pose to operations.
Another factor to consider will be the nature of core electronic security systems – are you using CCTV with analytics, thermal cameras or alarm systems, or both, and if you’re using alarm systems, are your sensors wired or wireless. It’s going to be much less expensive to expand wireless, all other things being equal.
CCTV and thermal detection will allow you to create intrusion detection rules that cover deeper parts of a scene – close to, at, or beyond the perimeter – as well as IVA rules that cover parts of the scene closer to buildings being protected.
But unless each outbuilding has CCTV cameras inside it, you’ll be depending on intrusion sensors internally, which might only dish up alerts that may include a succession of low resolution still images verifying genuine alarm events.
Given the budget, the network, and/or a building construction that lends itself to wireless transmission of images, having an alarm sensor capable of video verification in each space would be ideal. This would especially apply if you intended to install sensors anyway and PIR cameras were a modest additional cost.
However, if there are multiple cameras around the site set up with careful IVA rules – we’re imagining Bosch IVA in our mind’s eye here but there are many others – then confirmed activations beginning at the perimeter and moving into your sterile zone followed by alarm events should be considered verified.
Would You Install Detection Devices In Each Outbuilding?
If your site employs thermal cameras, it’s likely you’re already deploying IVA – the biggest different with optical cameras is massive range and greater discernment. We really like thermal for these reasons. Obviously, you would not use it to detect intrusion inside outbuildings but alarm events after thermal IVA alerts should also be considered genuine.
As monitoring station operators know, genuine intrusion events involve multiple activations – generating dozens – even hundreds of alarm events – as multiple intruders move purposely through protected spaces over long periods of time. Any incident that generates a cascade of alarm events should be considered genuine – especially if an IVA breach has already occurred.
Would we install detection devices in every outbuilding? Given wireless sensors might only cost a few hundred dollars and assets might cost tens of thousands of dollars, we’d tend to argue yes, especially if there’s no perimeter layer, or if there’s only a single perimeter layer.
When it comes to remote outbuildings, remote sirens and strobes are a worthwhile investment – even if you only deploy one per building group, or a siren in the centre of the building audible to an intruder no matter which building they approach or break into.
If you go with an external intrusion solution with sirens/strobes, then make sure the buildings are hardened sufficiently that an intruder feels they will be on site too long to continuing taking the risk.
You can read more about Bosch IVA here or find more SEN news here.
“Would You Install Detection Devices In Each Outbuilding On A Site Or Would You Only Defend Approaches?”
