As everything around us goes digital, physical security still plays a vital role in keeping us safe. Automated systems may handle our shopping, travel, and even nightlife, but there’s no substitute for real, on-the-ground security. Whether it’s security personnel or cameras, these tangible safeguards protect us from real-world threats and help ensure our everyday experiences are safe, even in an increasingly automated world.
So you would think that physical security, by means of security guards, doormen, and other individuals tasked with protection, are on the way out. Well, simply put, they aren’t.
There are quite a few reasons why physical security still matters. In fact, in most circumstances, an individual or team of personnel are preferable to a fully automated system, despite what security tech companies will tell you. Here are just some of the reasons why having a “man on the ground” is still critical.
Cheap
The argument for technology replacing some jobs is that it works out cheaper in the long run. Instead of paying someone £20,000 a year, companies will elect to spend £50,000 on a security system that replaces them all together, safe in the knowledge that it will pay for itself over time. But as with everything, these systems require upkeep. Replacement parts, upgrading software, and general wear and tear upkeep takes a toll. And in most cases, another person is required somewhere along the chain to maintain and monitor the system anyway.
Therefore, for a good portion of security jobs, a balance is preferable. If you have a state-of-the-art system that breaks down, you are in a lot more trouble than if your security guard is ill. Conversely, if you have a security guard with no tech backing him up, you are running unnecessary risk. But a smart, efficient security system that backs up by a security guard will mean you are spending massive amounts of money on a super advanced system without sacrificing overall security.
More personable
Approaching a building with nothing but a cold, unmanned entry security system can be very off putting. Despite it’s ever increasing integration into our lives, there is still an air of distrust towards technology. What if it doesn’t work? What if I’m using it incorrectly? Should these situations happen, they are often embarrassing or worrying.
Physical security adds a comforting, human element that technology just can’t match. Imagine arriving somewhere and being greeted with a warm “Good morning” from a security guard instead of a cold green light. A real person can be discreet and understanding, making situations feel less intimidating. If there’s an entry issue, they handle it calmly without drawing unnecessary attention. Physical security isn’t just about safety; it’s about making people feel welcome and at ease, something a machine simply can’t do.
More intimidating
On the flip side of the above point, a physical security presence can be more intimidating. Obviously, physical barricades will shoulder most of the “intimidation” burden, but if fences, spikes, razor wire and the like are fronted by a simple computer interface, people may not feel as threatened. The same can not be said if a security guard is patrolling it.
People might see a doorway protected by some kind of device, and feel safe enough to approach it if there are no apparent consequences for doing so. they aren’t likely to get past the system, but they can tamper with it. But if a security guard is presence, they are unlikely to be so bold.
“Reading a situation”
This is the key reason why computers will never truly replace front-line people in the security sector. A security system can do many, many things. They can scan IDs, check for credentials, perform background checks, and identify the person through retinal scans, fingerprint scans, and so on. But they can’t analyse one of the most important distinctions a security system need to make – they can’t “read a situation”.
For example, if a doorman sees a person approaching their business, and the person in question is clearly angry, they can be stopped. A security system, providing the person has the correct criteria to enter the building, can’t make that call. Similarly, security guards are trained to spot trouble brewing, pouncing on it and deflating the situation before anything gets out of hand. Simply put, a computer’s inability to read these x-factors means human-fronted security will always be necessary.