The Rise of Machines!?

While it's unlikely to happen in our lifetime, an undeniable trend in the security service sector is the displacement of security services, carried out through physical presence of individuals on-site, by technical security. After all, technical security is cheaper, more reliable, and uninterrupted!

At first glance, it seems logical. However, despite this, many economic agents still continue to use the first option mentioned. What are the reasons? Conformity or objective necessity?

The service itself, designed to solve specific tasks, often creates other unforeseen difficulties. Let's try to weigh all the pros and cons of using physical security and the possibility of abandoning it.

Pros of having a human:

• Vision: A person on-site generally has better vision, except in cases where it's necessary to see in complete darkness or in inclement weather. Inclement weather itself makes it uncomfortable for a person to stay outside for extended periods while maintaining concentration.
• Hearing: Naturally, a person has only one auditory channel, and if we assume that a remote operator can transmit the auditory picture observed by cameras, they can only listen to one sound source.
• Communication abilities: In some circumstances, a person's ability to engage in dialogue is an undeniable advantage. However, in cases where compliance with access control depends on the person, excessive sociability can turn into a disadvantage, as an overly talkative individual in contact with someone may be easier to persuade or bribe.
• Immediate presence: Perhaps this is the strongest argument in favor of physical security on-site. For example, if the power goes out, a person can manually open the gates. They will still be able to see and hear what's happening around them and respond according to instructions.

These are the only advantages of human presence, as the security guard, or rather 'controller,' for the money they potentially receive in this position, is not a trained rescuer, medical worker capable of providing emergency assistance, or a deterrent capable of applying force if necessary. This is not only due to qualifications but also legal restrictions.

Cons of using a human:

• Work capacity limit: A person can work with the calculated load for no more than 24 hours continuously. According to labor laws, no more than 12 hours.
• Mandatory physiological breaks: If a person typically visits the restroom 3-4 times a day, it adds up to approximately 30 minutes throughout the day. And this is without accounting for time spent traveling to and from the restroom. Thus, the 'clean' time of absence of a person on-site is at least 40-60 minutes. Regarding the need for food, meals can be consumed at the workplace, but a person's attention to performing their duties decreases during this time.
• Necessary expenses for setting up the workplace: Expenses for heating or air conditioning, expenses for arranging the room, and its ongoing maintenance. Other expenses due to compliance with sanitary norms at the workplace.

Failure to comply with even the minimum level of requirements for a person's stay at the workplace often leads to dissatisfaction among security service employees. And if the minimum level of working conditions is not met, one should expect not a machine uprising, but rather an uprising (resistance) of the machine owners, who, in their desire to gain more advantages in car storage, engage in serious conflicts and opposition. Each car owner considers themselves more right than others and views their behavior as more loyal than similar behavior by others. Often, while attending tenant meetings as part of their duty, you witness scenes where individual personalities try to obtain greater privileges in the use of public territory through quarrels and threats. These sometimes not only verbal arguments strongly resemble the prelude to the uprising of the 'Car Owners.'

Observing the dialogues of security guards with 'Car Owners' demanding immediate access, you understand that the moral forces and potential for aggression are clearly not in favor of the security personnel. Usually, everything ends with the security guard excusing themselves for not fulfilling their duties: 'what can I do...'

And here we can finally reassure ourselves that there won't be a 'machine uprising' in our lifetime. But if strict measures aren't taken to prevent some residents from appropriating more rights to use public property, then the uprising of the 'Car Owners' is quite a predictable public entertainment event.

How to Prevent This?!

There's a proven method:

• Separate the dispatcher making decisions about access to the territory from physical contact with the applicant at the entrance;
• Use hardware verification for access to the territory, which will not allow users to use public property for their personal purposes to a greater extent than allowed by established rules;
• Use specially trained operational group employees to prevent vandalism and acts of forceful overcoming of access restrictions. These employees not only possess the necessary psychological and physical training to 'resolve conflicts' but are also technically equipped with body cameras, which in itself puts 'discussion enthusiasts' into the necessary format of conversation.

Conclusions:

• We don't expect a machine uprising;
• To organize order on the territory of a residential complex, it's necessary to order remote dispatcher services.