implications

How evolving terror tactics have driven advances in perimeter security

Many urban threats used to be seen, at least in the eyes of the public, as things that happened on other shores. However, an increase in urban attacks of late has put pressure on security services to come up with innovative solutions that allow business to continue as normal and the public to enjoy some peace of mind. Amid these new threats, coupled with geopolitical fears and the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe, governments are attempting to make borders more secure and event venues and stewards of high-risk public areas are following suit.

With terrorists now using vehicles as weapons, many existing security solutions need reassessing as they are inadequate at preventing vehicular attack. This month marks the anniversary of the Nice attack and similar incidents have occurred since in Berlin, Stockholm and London. The change in tactics has rendered current security provisions outdated. A proactive, preventative approach is now required if security personnel are to put a stop to such incidents. Mitigating risk While no guarantee can be made about the safety of those attending events or conducting their daily lives in high-risk, crowded public areas, perimeter security does provide an increased level of protection and has seen advancements designed to mitigate the risk and impact associated with today s urban threats. Previously seen on military bases, oil and gas fields and other important infrastructure, perimeter security products have become popular for those looking to secure their event and put public safety firmly back on the agenda. Threats are, of course, unpredictable. However, providing a readily-available solution for areas deemed high-risk due to large volumes of the public passing through, including stadiums or other event spaces, can help deter or reduce the impact of vehicular and some other attacks. The concrete blocks so far installed have actually been found to be near to useless when tested by researchers in Germany While video cameras and security guards are two of the most common security measures that organisations have in place, they aren t always the most effective.

With hostile events increasing in frequency, there has been a reliance on video surveillance to identify perpetrators and ensure that every angle is covered. However, surveillance cameras are mostly effective when the attack has already happened. There s no doubt that the increased threat level has meant that event organisers and those managing security in high-risk areas have had to look at alternative ways in which they can prevent attacks or reduce their impact. Protecting civilian areas has become a higher priority, with perimeter security generating much interest and innovation. In reaction to the London attacks, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick announced that vehicle barriers were to be installed across London in some form or other. Yet while such reactive measures are of course welcomed, it s imperative that everyone involved in public security should take action in the threat against urban terror. The concrete blocks so far installed have actually been found to be near to useless when tested by researchers in Germany, who found that they would be unable to prevent similar attacks. These revelations have prompted the development of barriers that are crash-resistant up to speeds of 50mph and use an anti-climb mesh to prevent further intrusions. As the solutions are flat-packed and can be earth-filled, they are an effective option for event security, minimising installation time and the impact on the surrounding environment.

Units can also be branded, so they remain inconspicuous and in line with an organisation s existing branding. New threats are presenting themselves every day. Organisations and urban spaces are aware they can no longer be just reactive in the wake of a hostile event. Precautionary measures are becoming increasingly advanced and accessible, and where public safety is concerned, you truly cannot put a price on it. Free Download: Securing UK borders: An examination of the implications of leaving the EU for UK border management. Recent tragic events in Manchester and London have, among other things, underscored the importance to national security of getting Brexit right. This report considers the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders and making it as easy as possible for international business to thrive and legitimate movement to occur in a post-Brexit UK.

Click here to download now

Watch: Borders & Infrastructure Expo makes its debut at IFSEC 2017

IFSEC video A convergence of trends has made border security and the protection of critical national infrastructure (CNI) two of the most pressing priorities for governments around the world. From Madrid to Manila, nowhere is fully insulated from the global terror threat, inter-state cyber warfare and historically high migration flows. Recognising growing demand for technologies that help combat these problems, IFSEC International launched Borders & Infrastructure Expo for its 2017 edition.

Watch below our highlights video from Borders & Infrastructure Expo, which took place within IFSEC International at London ExCeL in June and was sponsored by Genetec. Borders and infrastructure encompasses central and local government, transport and utilities, sports stadia and events, logistics, border security and law enforcement and any other sectors critical to the functioning of a country s economy or civil society. embedded content Free Download: Securing UK borders: An examination of the implications of leaving the EU for UK border management. Recent tragic events in Manchester and London have, among other things, underscored the importance to national security of getting Brexit right. This report considers the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders and making it as easy as possible for international business to thrive and legitimate movement to occur in a post-Brexit UK.

Click here to download now

Watch: Highlights from the Drone Zone 2017

IFseC 2017 The Drone Zone returned to IFSEC International in 2017 for the second time. Drones have applications in perimeter surveillance, intruder alerts, mobile CCTV, emergency communications networks, facilities surveillance, criminal tool prosecution, fire scene investigations and drone detection. Watch our highlights video from the Drone Zone, which took place within Borders & Infrastructure Expo at London ExCeL between 20-22 June 2017.

embedded content Free Download: Securing UK borders: An examination of the implications of leaving the EU for UK border management. Recent tragic events in Manchester and London have, among other things, underscored the importance to national security of getting Brexit right. This report considers the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders and making it as easy as possible for international business to thrive and legitimate movement to occur in a post-Brexit UK.

Click here to download now

Watch: The LPCB Attack Testing Zone at IFSEC 2017

Security doors, perimeter fencing, shutters and covers were subjected to hammers, wire cutters and other handheld tools in the LPCB Attack Testing Zone at IFSEC 2017. The new area, which took place within Borders & Infrastructure Expo itself debuting and is expected to return again for the 2018 show, saw technicians from the LPCB put non-approved products to the test alongside LPCB-approved alternatives that have achieved a minimum of LPS 1175 SR-3 compliance. We ve put together a highlights video, below, from the Attack Testing Zone.

The LPCB Loss Prevention Certification Board was set up by certification body BRE Global. embedded content Free Download: Securing UK borders: An examination of the implications of leaving the EU for UK border management. Recent tragic events in Manchester and London have, among other things, underscored the importance to national security of getting Brexit right.

This report considers the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders and making it as easy as possible for international business to thrive and legitimate movement to occur in a post-Brexit UK.

Click here to download now

Hung parliament: Have Cameron and May s calamitous gambles imperilled UK border security?

Brexit fallout Cameron gambled, lost. May gambled, lost. Tory party beginning to look like a casino.

Tweeted by Dutch MEP Sophie in t Veld this is a pithily apt description of the Conservatives two big calls over Brexit. If David Cameron s fateful decision to announce a referendum on January 2013 has achieved one of its primary goals to siphon off support from UKIP then it did so, quite unexpectedly, at the expense of his own premiership. Having embraced the referendum result despite being (an admittedly coy) Remainer his successor, Theresa May, then used Brexit as a pretext to strengthen her majority in the House of Commons against what the commentariat had deemed the least electable Labour leader since Michael Foot. Now we have a hung parliament with a minority Conservative government propped up by 10 DUP MPs. Whatever your political leanings, few would disagree that the prospect of concluding negotiations smoothly have now receded. Whatever your political leanings, few would disagree that the prospect of concluding negotiations smoothly have now receded. We re already nearly three months into the already narrow two-year negotiating window, the Article 50 having been triggered on 29 March. As the FT writes this morning: Theresa May s folly in calling a general election and then losing her overall majority means that the UK is now in an even weaker negotiating position than when it started There are few words to describe the sheer irresponsibility of the prime minister in triggering Article 50 only to follow it by calling a needless general election. A hung parliament, or even an overall defeat, was always a foreseeable (as opposed to predicted) potential outcome.

It was the last thing a prudent politician should have done: there is now considerable uncertainty at the very point the UK needed certainty, as the Brexit talks are about to commence. Nick Clegg, who lost his Sheffield Hallam seat, has said that MPs will either need to find a cross-party consensus on a more moderate workable approach to Brexit or we will have to go back to the country maybe once or twice until one party wins a majority, which would devour much of the two-year negotiating window. It is impossible to exaggerate this morning how self-absorbed and adrift the UK looks to the rest of Europe I can t think of any example of a modern mature democracy putting itself in such a vulnerable position. Confusion at UK borders And if negotiations do fail, what does that mean for national security? The UK s trade tariff levels with Europe and the rest of the world would default to World Trade Organisation terms, triggering a rise in the price of imports, with agricultural goods being an eye-watering 30-40%. But with the UK Lacking its own schedule at the WTO, there could be confusion at UK borders over customs declarations. This is an issue explored in depth in a white paper published on IFSEC Global this week. The cost of replicating the European Arrest Warrant outside the EU is expected to substantially exceed (by a factor of four) the cost of operating the EU measure. Norway and Iceland have been trying to negotiate a form of EAW with the EU but this has taken 15 years and is still to be ratified by every member state.

From the London First report on Brexit and border security Commissioned by London First s Security & Resilience Network, the report examines the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders. From Europol membership to the Schengen Information System, the UK is at risk of losing access to a plethora of collaborative tools, the report reveals. Securing UK borders: An examination of the implications of leaving the EU for UK border management , which is written by several experts in immigration and border security, European law, and security and resilience, also warns of: Confusion at the UK border as customs declarations slow down traffic. The Road Haulage Association has said there is a real danger of everything grinding to a halt Complexities of new visa arrangements: Questions must arise about the ability of Border Force to deal with the increased workload as well as the physical capacity of receiving airports and other points of entry Brexit could represent an opportunity to modernise current practice and technology and adopt best practices from elsewhere in the world to improve both border security and customer experience ahead of, or at, the border. A decade after New Labour s attempts to introduce identity cards were shelved the concept could reemerge. The need to reframe collaboration with the EU over information sharing as Britain exits Europol and loses access to Eurojust, SIS II, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), the Pr m Decisions and the Passenger Name Records (PNR) The white paper follows an earlier report by the Security & Resilience Network that examined the Security and Resilience Implications of Brexit. The report was launched at a London First briefing on 7 June 2017 and distributed at the IFSEC International 2017 exhibition (20-22 June 2017), which includes for the first time the Borders and Infrastructure Expo. UBM, the organiser of IFSEC, sponsors this report. Get your free badge for IFSEC now.

Join other high-end security professionals at the launch of Borders & Infrastructure Expo In conjunction with Europe s most renowned security event , IFSEC International, B&I is addressing your critical needs for large scale security projects affecting national security, integrated systems, border protection and much more. You will have access to test the latest security innovations in; Physical & perimeter, Barriers & bollards, Command & control, Emergency response, Cyber solutions, Drones & UAVs, Transport security and much more. Click here to register your place now to join us at London Excel on 20 22 June 2017.

Daily Kos: Private Lives, Public Surveillance

Whether people think about this election s hot button issues in this framework or not, many of our country s so-called social issues are issues of privacy. While lawmakers fought over the economic and religious implications of hot topics like gay marriage, abortion, health care and cybersecurity1, they were essentially deciding what level of privacy Americans should be entitled to under the law, and how strictly the Constitution should be interpreted to provide or deny that privacy.

I thought about this struggle between the private lives of citizens and the public decisions of legislators and administrations when I saw a story from Texas about high school sophomore Natalie Hernandez suing her school following her expulsion. Hernandez was expelled from her high school because she refused to wear her school s name badge, which contains an RFID tracking device.

Hernandez says the badge violates her religion the badge is considered a mark of the beast and by forcing her to wear it, the school district is violating her First Amendment rights. After the school offered her a name badge without the tracking device, which she refused, the school expelled her.

I think the religious aspect of this case is not as important as the general question of privacy . Yes, the mark of the beast claim allows Hernandez to make a First Amendment argument, and in cases like Wisconsin v.

Yoder, the Supreme Court has made exceptions for religious beliefs in public education before. But there s more to this case than a school wanting to know where a student is, and a Christian student refusing to let them because of religious reasons. This case is a sign of privacy debates in the age of technology.

The obvious conflict in this case is the right to privacy of the students, versus the necessity of tracking them of the administration.

The school district argues that the RFID trackers are meant to keep students on the school premises during school hours, and to make sure that they re in class when they should be. The students argue that the school is unnecessarily tracking their every move for reasons that could easily be solved by other solutions and if the feed were accessible to others outside the school, they could put students in danger by making all of their movements traceable.

The second conflict is the how free schools are to begin with. With regards to constitutional rights to expression and privacy, schools are considered special places they re grouped with prisons and military bases in legal terms (prisons also often require tracking devices).

And while the US Supreme Court decided that students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate in Tinker vs. Des Moines2, schools can still do things like search students lockers, place restrictions on their school newspapers, and limit free expression by implementing and enforcing dress codes because they must balance the rights of the students with the order and safety of the school.

It makes sense that teachers and school administrators would want to know where students are when they re at school if they re cutting P.E. and hanging out in the bathroom, or lingering a little longer at lunch than they should.

But the attendance-boosting RFID cards aren’t foolproof what s to say a student can t pass off their ID card to a friend to carry around for the day? Furthermore, can t teachers just pay attention to who is present and who isn’t by taking attendance, and making a round of the hallways once and again? It would certainly save money, those trackers can t be cheap.

To make students wear these tracking devices sets a dangerous precedent for limiting students privacy even further within an already restricted space, and put schools closer to prisons on the legal privacy spectrum.

It takes accountability away from students, who should show up to class of their own volition, and takes away accountability from teachers, who should be paying attention to keeping students in class. Perhaps this method of tracking could be used at schools for at-risk students or juvenile facilities where students have made past infractions and require more attention, but it’s excessive for the average kid at a public school that took longer to get to class than his peers.

Furthermore, Constitutional precedent only allows an invasion of students privacy to keep school order and to protect students safety. And while the RFID device does help to find where students are at all times and helps the administration ensure that students are in class when they say they are, this tracker badge requirement invades a student s privacy more than necessary for a school to keep order it s a disproportionate response, and shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

References

  1. ^ cybersecurity (www.politico.com)
  2. ^ Tinker vs.

    Des Moines (www.bc.edu)

IAPSC Submits Comment Letter Opposing NFPA 730: Premises …

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has opened for public comment the next revision of the NFPA 730: Premises Security Guide.

What is important for you to note is that NFPA is proposing to change the NFPA 730 Guide to a Code.

IAPSC is strongly opposing this change and has submitted a comment form and letter to the NFPA.

Click here1 to download IAPSC s comment letter to the NFPA

While the NFPA may be well intended in its efforts to develop security guidelines and standards, the Association lacks the requisite skill, knowledge and experience in the security industry to enter into the development of a national premises security code.

The proposed draft of NFPA 730 demonstrates that lack of knowledge regarding the complexities of managing security programs and understanding the specific security needs of a wide range of businesses and organizations.

The draft of NFPA 730 is replete with numerous vague, unclear and undefined terms.

The legal implications of making NFPA 730 into national code are far-reaching and significant.

In the civil liability context, in some jurisdictions a violation of code can constitute negligence per se (i.e., absolute liability the mere failure to comply with the code results in liability imposed by a court) and in others, evidence of negligence.

At the very least, the failure to comply with code can lead to substantial fines and the possible loss of a business license (for example, if a hotel were to lose its occupancy permit due to a code violation, then the hotel would be put out of business).

As a representative of the security industry, it is critical that you help in opposing this significant proposed change, by submitting your own comment form.

There is strength in numbers: the more comment forms submitted, the more attention this matter is likely to receive.

Comments are due to the NFPA on or before November 16, 2012.

Address your comment form to:
National Fire Protection Association
Attn.: Secretary, Standards Council
1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169-7471 -or-
Fax to: (617) 770-3500 -or
Email to: [email protected]2

Information on the proposed changes:
NFPA 730 First Draft Report (PDF)3 for the proposed next edition and submission of comments via the NFPA Public Comment form4.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

References

  1. ^ Click here (www.iapsc.org)
  2. ^ [email protected] (securityconsultants.wordpress.com)
  3. ^ NFPA 730 First Draft Report (PDF) (www.iapsc.org)
  4. ^ NFPA Public Comment form (www.iapsc.org)

CRS: Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations … – Privacy Lives

The Congressional Research Service (the investigative arm of Congress), has released a new report, Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses (Federation of American Scientists1 pdf; archive2 pdf). (See a previous post3 for more on drones, otherwise known as unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs. ) Here s an excerpt from the summary:

The prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues.

Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that can fly without an onboard human operator. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is the entire system, including the aircraft, digital network, and personnel on the ground. Drones can fly either by remote control or on a predetermined flight path; can be as small as an insect and as large as a traditional jet; can be produced more cheaply than traditional aircraft; and can keep operators out of harm s way. These unmanned aircraft are most commonly known for their operations overseas in tracking down and killing suspected members of Al Qaeda and related organizations. In addition to these missions abroad, drones are being considered for use in domestic surveillance operations, which might include in furtherance of homeland security, crime fighting, disaster relief, immigration control, and environmental monitoring.

Although relatively few drones are currently flown over U.S. soil, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the nation s skies in less than 20 years. Congress has played a large role in this expansion. In February 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95), which calls for the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by 2015. However, some Members of Congress and the public fear there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that drones are not used to spy on American citizens and unduly infringe upon their fundamental privacy. These observers caution that the FAA is primarily charged with ensuring air traffic safety, and is not adequately prepared to handle the issues of privacy and civil liberties raised by drone use.

This report assesses the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. A reviewing court s determination of the reasonableness of drone surveillance would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement. While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places and perhaps even less in areas immediately outside the home, such as in driveways or backyards. Concomitantly, as technology advances, the contours of what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment may adjust as people s expectations of privacy evolve.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 11th, 2012 and is filed under Cameras4, Civil liberties5, Fourth Amendment6, Identification7, Security8, Technology9. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.010 feed. You can leave a response11, or trackback12 from your own site.

Possibly related posts:

References

  1. ^ Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org)
  2. ^ archive (www.privacylives.com)
  3. ^ a previous post (www.privacylives.com)
  4. ^ View all posts in Cameras (www.privacylives.com)
  5. ^ View all posts in Civil liberties (www.privacylives.com)
  6. ^ View all posts in Fourth Amendment (www.privacylives.com)
  7. ^ View all posts in Identification (www.privacylives.com)
  8. ^ View all posts in Security (www.privacylives.com)
  9. ^ View all posts in Technology (www.privacylives.com)
  10. ^ RSS 2.0 (www.privacylives.com)
  11. ^ leave a response (www.privacylives.com)
  12. ^ trackback (www.privacylives.com)

Education programme unveiled for Global Security Summit London

Education programme unveiled for Global Security Summit London The high level education programme for the inaugural Global Security Summit in London this coming October has been announced by event organisers UBM Live and Pro-Activ Publications. With big names from the world of security, finance, Government and policing in attendance, Global Security Summit London organisers UBM Live and Pro-Activ Publications have announced the inaugural show s two-day, sector-driven education programme for 10-11 October 2012. This bespoke event for end users with security management and converged project responsibilities features a two-day educational programme that will focus on both logical and physical security solutions, addressing convergence, interoperability and infrastructure capabilities along the way.

Following on from the current security debate surrounding security for the 2012 London Olympics, Day One of the Global Security Summit London education programme centres on the post-Olympics legacy, the impending security implications and the future of public-private sector partnerships. Convergence: physical and cyber security Day Two will be more IT-focused, examining the subject of convergence and encompassing the increasing integration of physical and cyber security both now and in the future. In many organisations physical security and information security are managed by two separate departments.

However, in this day and age businesses are increasingly vulnerable to blended threats. Therefore, it s vital to be able to prioritise risks and respond effectively to a wide variety of threats. James Willison (of Unified Security, and vice-chairman ASIS International s European Advisory Council Security Convergence Sub-Committee) and Sarb Sembhi (director of consulting services at Incoming Thought) have worked together on a variety of projects which identify these converged issues and developed integrated solutions.

Both are delighted to be introducing the key aspects of their work at Global Security Summit London this coming October. Individual themes for each day Each day of the new show will be divided into two individual themes with Creating Safer Cities: The Role of Partnerships scheduled for the morning of Day One and Security Challenges for Global Organisations in the afternoon. Senior speakers will address topics such as Cross-Sector Safety and Security Communications (CSSC), the ever-expanding role of the private sector in security provision across the public realm and global counter-terrorism issues.

Maximising business resilience, securing London s transport infrastructure and guidelines on how to embed security into your organisation from the top down will also be explored. Confirmed speakers for Day One Confirmed speakers for Day One include Andy Trotter (chief constable, British Transport Police), Don Randall MBE (head of security at the Bank of England), Charles Farr (director general of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, Home Office) and Mike Bluestone MA CSyP FSyI , chairman of The Security Institute. Commenting on Global Security Summit London, Mike Bluestone said: I m delighted that The Security Institute is supporting Global Security Summit London.

This important event will attract a serious audience of security professionals who, along with members of The Security Institute, share a common desire to raise professional standards in the security sector. Bluestone continued: I m grateful to have the opportunity to speak at the first Global Security Summit on the topic of Best Practice in Security. None of us has a monopoly on good ideas, and I look forward to not only speaking but also hearing delegates own thoughts and comments on sustaining and enhancing the embedding of good security practice, at all levels, in both the private and public sectors.

Day Two: themes and participants Day Two s themes incorporate The Role of Technology and Smarter Working in Corporate Security in the morning, and Security Convergence, Integration and Interoperability in the afternoon. High-level speakers will offer innovative and forward-thinking presentations on topical issues such as E-Crime Prevention and Policing Cyberspace , Radicalisation and the Internet and Future Security Threats . The Security Convergence Movement A holistic approach to security , How to enhance your Security Integration Capability and Global Security: A challenge for the Modern CSO will also be discussed.

Confirmed speakers include deputy chief constable Stuart Hyde (the ACPO lead on e-crime prevention and president of the Society for the Policing of Cyberspace), Hagai Segal (lecturer at New York University in London), Ian Pearson (futurologist at Futurizon GmbH) and Balaji Srimoolanathan, the principal consultant on Aerospace, Defence & Security at Frost & Sullivan. Balaji Srimoolanathan explained: As a speaker at Global Security Summit London, I regard this event to be a unique platform for end users and members of the wider security community to come together and share their thoughts, discuss Best Practice and address critical security challenges and strategic issues around integration, interoperability and infrastructure capabilities. Further information on Global Security Summit London 2012 For further information on Global Security Summit London, the full education programme and speaker line-up access the GSS 2012 website (the link can be found at the foot of this article), follow the event on Twitter (@GSS_London) or join the LinkedIn Group.

Companies interested in exhibiting should contact event manager Tracy Bebbington on (telephone) 0207 921 8065 or e-mail: [email protected] or Paul Amura (business development director at Pro-Activ Publications) on tel: 020 8295 8307 or e-mail: [email protected] About Global Security Summit London Global Security Summit London is the unique event for end users with security management and converged project responsibilities. Run by UBM Live, organisers of IFSEC International and Firex International, and Pro-Activ (publishers of Risk UK magazine), Global Security Summit London is part of the Working Buildings Series which includes the FM event (www.thefmevent.com), the UK s longest running facilities event, Building Services: The CIBSE Conference and Exhibition (www.buildingservicesevent.com) and Energy Solutions (www.energysolutionsexpo.co.uk) – the UK s leading energy management event. About UBM Live UBM Live connects people and creates opportunities for companies across five continents to develop new business, meet customers, launch new products, promote their brands and expand their markets.

Through premier brands such as MD&M, CPhI, IFSEC, TFM&A, Cruise Shipping Miami, the Concrete Show and many others, UBM Live exhibitions, conferences, awards programmes, publications, websites and training and certification programs are an integral part of the marketing plans of companies across more than 20 industry sectors. About Pro-Activ Publications Pro-Activ Publishing is an independent publisher of security magazines in the UK. Established industry titles such as PSI, Risk UK and Benchmark keep end users, installers, consultants and Trade Associations up-to-date with new product launches, Case Studies and in-depth articles.

All three magazines produce weekly e-newsletters and have websites featuring exclusive content.

Unique in the market, Benchmark magazine is dedicated to the independent testing of CCTV, intruder alarms and other security systems.

Risk UK magazine is the ideal partner for the Global Security Summit with its readership of 7,000 buyers and specifiers of security, fire, IT and business continuity products and services.