SIAC says you should ‘be part of the solution’

 - 
05/14/2010

I’ve been working on a story about the metro Phoenix area and how a number of municipalities there are all watching each other very closely, waiting to see who will be the first to go to verified response for alarms. Initially I blogged about Goodyear and now it’s Avondale making noise. I first blogged about this trend waiting to happen back at the end of March. At the time, I spoke with C.O.P.S. vice president of special projects Maria Malice who is president of the AzAA. She’s been working tirelessly to make sure things turn out in a mutually satisfactory way. “We really want to work with them,” Malice said. “With more and more cities waiting to see who’s going to be first to go verified response it’s critical that we be there working with them.”

In my reporting on the story, I also spoke with SIAC executive director Stan Martin, who also went down to Arizona to speak with the folks in Avondale (who ditched the verified response idea, by the way). He showed me some new stuff on the SIAC site.

There’s a link to a pretty impressive news video that convinced right away what a bad idea VR is. Check the video out:

Stan also mentioned that SIAC’s looking for funds. If you haven’t given in support of SIAC, check out the video they’ve put out, which highlights some of what they do. As Stan says, “Be part of the solution.”

Comments

<div class="commentbody">
<p class="comment_author"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">May 15th, 2010 at 9:53 pm </span></span></p>
<div class="comment_text">
<p>Hey Mike and Steve,</p>
<p>Thanks for the comments guys. I agree with the assertion that all alarms should be verified. There&rsquo;s absolutely no reason, with the solutions that exist for an alarm to be &ldquo;blind.&rdquo;</p>
<p>I also agree that the alarm industry tends to move slowly, and that IT will probably continue to make inroads into what has traditionally been the domain of intrusion integrators. Actually the slack will be picked up by whoever embraces service&ndash;whether through increased and knowledgeable use of technology or not.</p>
<p>Again, thank you both for adding your voices to this discussion.</p>
</div>
</div>

<div class="commentbody">
<p class="comment_author"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">May 14th, 2010 at 11:08 pm </span></span></p>
<div class="comment_text">
<p>1. Event images must be used to verify burglar alarms - or people will get hurt.<br />
2. Alarm Dealers do not understand IP and are not promoting the use of Video Verification<br />
3. There is no training on IP available to Alarm Dealers<br />
4. Even though POTS lines are going away and the Verifeid Response policy is increasing, the security industry is moving too slow.<br />
5. Never mind - the IT industry will come in and clean up our &ldquo;mess&rdquo;.</p>
</div>
</div>

<div class="commentbody">
<p class="comment_author"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">May 14th, 2010 at 4:37 pm </span></span></p>
<div class="comment_text">
<p>Provident provides &lsquo;verified response&rsquo; for 100% of our clients&hellip; and we have been doing so for more than a decade. For us, verified response means that we respond personally to every alarm within five minutes. However, we do not make any phone calls to our clients. We assume that every alarm is real&hellip; if its a false alarm, we make it our clients responsibility to call us. It&rsquo;s all about how &lsquo;verified&rsquo; is defined. Calling the premises only serves to verify a false alarm&hellip; it doesn&rsquo;t put you any further ahead in determining if its real. It does guarantee that you&rsquo;ll waste a lot of time though.</p>
<p>With respect to &lsquo;Enhanced Call Verification&rsquo;&hellip; I think that is a misnomer. I wrote about it awhile a go on my blog at&nbsp;http://www.providentsecurity.ca/blog/2007/08/enhanced-call-v.html&nbsp;</p>
<p>ECV is marketing speak to make a time delay sound like a feature. There is nothing &lsquo;enhanced&rsquo; about it.</p>
</div>
</div>

<div class="commentbody">
<p class="comment_author">May 14th, 2010 at 2:19 pm</p>
<div class="comment_text">
<p>I see your point Mike. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I agree about the need for better service. I feel like the verified alarms movement whereby police have been responding to the efforts of companies like RSI and Sonitrol by offering priority response to alarms when they&rsquo;re proactively verified via video or audio by the alarm company makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>As far as the video is concerned, I was under the impression that the video from the store was from a legacy CCTV with a DVR and that it wasn&rsquo;t part of the alarm system and so wouldn&rsquo;t have been utilitarian as a verification tool&hellip; But again, that&rsquo;s just my assumption. Regardless, however, assuming the alarm was false and calling the the RP to show up with keys is part of ECV, isn&rsquo;t it? It&rsquo;s certainly part of VR.</p>
<p>Again, thanks for the comment.</p>
</div>
</div>

<p class="comment_author"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">May 14th, 2010 at 12:13 pm </span></span></p>
<p>I don&rsquo;t see this story as an argument about verified response policies at all.&nbsp;</p>
<p>If they had used the cameras to view remotely, the central station would have seen the burglar. The alarm could have been quickly verified.</p>
<p>Instead, the alarm company did what almost every alarm company does&hellip; they assumed it was another false alarm and called the owner, who called his son, who made his way to the store.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Sending a client to investigate their own alarm is both dangerous and stupid. Sending the Police to respond to every alarm is both stupid and a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Nevertheless, thousands of times a day, alarm companies do both.</p>
<p>This isn&rsquo;t a two option only situation. There are many ways to provide safe and efficient verification&hellip; either using properly trained guards providing immediate response or using technology. Either option works.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is a common-sense/personal safety issue.&nbsp;</p>
<p>At some stage, alarm companies need to take responsibility for the service that is being provided and acknowledge that professional response, or at least technical verification, is an essential part of providing a real service. Sending a client into a potentially dangerous situation is half-assed. Collecting money for it is worse. Using it as an example as to why Police departments should fund our service delivery model is criminal.</p>
<p>Spending money as an industry to try and hang onto an old business model (where the Police would provide, and finance, the services required to make an alarm useful in the first place) that no longer works doesn&rsquo;t make much sense to me.&nbsp;</p>
<p>You&rsquo;ve written on your blog about the need for the industry to improve its image&hellip; that will come from companies providing proper service. That&rsquo;s it. Not lobbying, not assigning a PR task force or industry associations trying to spin stories in the news.</p>

<p>Monitor This! talks with SIAC, AzAA. Looks at video showing why verified response is bad: <a linkindex="53" href="../../../../../../../blogsm/?p=2603" rel="nofollow">http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/blogsm/?p=2603</a></p>