Category: Feature

Genetec Inc. has recently introduced a new version of Security Center, an open-architecture platform that unifies video surveillance, access control, automatic license plate recognition (ALPR), communications, and analytics. Security Center 5.7 allows users to make insight-driven decisions based on security and analytics data. This latest version also adds privacy protection for individuals, efficiently distributes HID mobile access control credentials, and ensures business continuity with native access control fail-over. Protecting data, the network, and the organization Cyber resilience is about securing communications, authenticating users, and protecting businesses from employees unwittingly allowing vulnerable network-connected devices to threaten the business. To improve overall cybersecurity, Security Center now automatically identifies whether connected edge devices are running the most recent and secure device firmware. Once notified of known vulnerabilities and given firmware recommendations, administrators can take immediate action and eliminate known security gaps. ‘GDPR-ready’ privacy and video analytics More than a trend, protecting individual privacy is fast-becoming a necessity of security management. In some regions like Europe, it is already becoming codified in law. By embedding the KiwiVision™ Privacy Protector ™ module, Genetec enables organizations to automatically blur and mask sensitive video, and anonymize people to protect their privacy. Privacy protector was recently re-certified for its fourth consecutive term with the European Privacy Seal (EuroPriSe), and remains the only video solution to hold this certification.Privacy protector is also rated as ‘GDPR-ready,’ meeting the stringent compliance criteria of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will go into effect May 25th, 2018 in the European Union. The KiwiVision Intrusion Detector™  module is also unified with SecurityCenter 5.7 to generate real-time alarms that automatically notify security staff when individuals or vehicles enter sensitive areas, secured perimeters, or restricted zones. Through an accompanying analytics-based intrusion report, operators can now engage in deeper investigations. Additionally, to assist users in scanning through hours of footage, a new Quick Search forensics tool identifies changes in recorded scenes in seconds, ignoring irrelevant footage to narrow down searches. Enterprise access control with native failover and HID mobile credential support The Security Center Synergis™ access control system now comes with built-in failover, so customers can take advantage of continuous monitoring of devices and events. This safeguards critical information and ensures business continuity, even when servers fail. The new HID Mobile Access Portal API integration allows organizations to efficiently deploy mobile credentials to their employees, contractors, and visitors. These credential holders receive an email to download the HID Mobile Access Portal application on their devices, which enables access via Bluetooth® or NFC wireless technology. Employees and visitors will now be able to use their smartphone, wearables, and tablets to gain approved access credentials to securely open doors and defined areas of the premises. Insight-driven reporting and decision support The new advanced Security Center reporting feature intuitively displays data in dynamic charts and graphs, helping organizations gain a deeper understanding of their data, identify trends, and spot undetected patterns. Visualization of physical security data can be employed to quickly isolate security gaps and suspicious activity, identify maintenance issues, find valuable opportunities to improve operations, and ultimately make smarter decisions.    

The hospitality industry is constantly evolving. Hotels focus on leveraging technology to enhance the user experience, which includes streamlining processes and adding additional amenities that draw repeat visits. At the same time, efforts to maintain the safety and security of individual hotels and hotel chains face a sea change. Although security began as a property protection function, it has broadened to include plans to mitigate several types of threats, ranging from fraud and malfeasance to terrorism to response to major events including natural and manmade disasters. It is clear from the growing demand for technology solutions within this segment that hospitality is very focused on ensuring a safe environment for those inside the facility. Hotels strive to deliver exceptional customer service while balancing the safety and security of guests, employees and visitors with a welcoming environment. Modern risks, including those related to cybersecurity, liability and compliance, have propelled the need for stringent yet creative security strategies to be integrated into a hotel’s overall business strategy. As hotels don’t report incidents, there is limited public data regarding the safety and security of these properties. However, it’s still clear that threats exist in hotels and resorts. A 2009 study that examined crimes reported by 64 Miami Beach hotels to the Miami Beach Police Department showed that theft is a chief problem, with nearly half of the 756 reported crimes being thefts. Growth ahead Threats like those mentioned above continue to be a significant driver in the deployment of video surveillance, video intelligence technologies and other security systems. The demonstrated value of video drives further interest in surveillance platforms, and this along with other factors propels the use of video surveillance as it continues to advance globally. According to a 2017 report from Research and Markets, the video surveillance market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 9.6 percent from 2017 to 2023, with hospitality, healthcare and education verticals forecasted to grow at an even higher rate. Technology plays a critical role in the effectiveness of a security function in all organizations, and the hospitality industry is no exception. In research conducted by Professor Alexandros Paraskevas, Chair in Hospitality Management at the University of West London, with assistance from the International Centre for Hotel and Resort Management, a large majority of hotels reported that video surveillance is by far the ‘core’ solution in use today. According to one participant, “95 percent of the discussion on security technology investment is about video surveillance.” Most executives consider video to be the leading investment, used as a deterrent or as an investigative tool. It is predominantly used in a reactive, not proactive manner. Even though technology is considered a force multiplier, many hotels struggle with allocating sufficient budget for security measures. Security investment within the hospitality sector is typically a ‘reluctant spend’ since it is not considered a revenue generator. That does not mean that the hospitality industry doesn’t prioritize security, it’s just a matter of setting the right mindset. Owners and managers who realize the importance of employee and guest safety, and the overall benefit of security are keener to discuss investment. This is why security leaders must be willing and able to educate senior leaders on the technology being proposed. As video surveillance becomes more prominent as a business operations tool in addition to a critical piece of a comprehensive security plan, valuable innovations such as panoramic and 360-degree cameras and video analytics, are important tools to reduce cost and increase coverage of large areas such as hotel lobbies and parking lots. But these products are only one piece of the puzzle – a comprehensive security solution can not only prevent and provide investigative/ forensic support, but also reduce insurance premiums and increase business. It is critical that video cameras and other security solutions are integrated to form a more comprehensive view of a hotel’s overall security posture. Simple, intelligent systems that bring information to the operator are optimal because they help hotels gain new levels of intelligence to help mitigate risks more effectively and proactively. The future is now Advancements in technologies propel new ways for security technology – most predominantly video – to be leveraged throughout an organization. Video data can be leveraged for additional uses that span several departments including business operations and marketing. The capital investment in video capture technology then becomes more widely distributed as more departments utilize the information, going from a required ‘grudge purchase’ to a ‘Swiss Army Knife’ of operational benefits. For example, the future of analytics provides heat-mapping functionality that hotels can use to identify busy areas for target marketing. Users can analyze traffic and people flow, and use that information to determine how to best use specific areas. With facial recognition software, hotels can better address the needs of VIPs by allowing hotel staff to be alert when a frequent guest arrives. How’s that for customer service? Hotels and resorts can use advanced technologies to better serve guests in an effort to deliver the kind of personalized service that customers will come to expect from their visit in the future. This will allow brands to build long-term relationships and ensure return visits, leading to increased revenue streams and a successful sustained business model. At the same time, hotels will be able to realize new levels of safety and security to keep their most important assets protected.                                    Author:-       Abhishek Kumar ( Regional Director, Southeast Asia, Oncam)

Data found on a suspect’s computer, cell phone or tablet can prove to be crucial evidence in a legal case. A new set of software tools developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) aims to make sure this digital evidence will hold up in the court. The software suite, referred to collectively as federated testing tools, is designed to help law enforcement and forensic practitioners with a critical early step in evidence collection – making a copy of the data from a seized electronic device. Because a suspect’s guilt or innocence can hang in the balance, both the prosecution and the defense must agree that the digital forensic process did not introduce any unseen errors into the data, and that the methods they are using work as expected. Extracting and copying data is a risky process because of the rapidly shifting digital landscape that the devices inhabit. Confronting the practitioners are all the differences in data and format that can exist between one device and the next – because of the sheer number of different manufacturers, and because of the frequent software updates pushed to various makes and models. “It’s hard to keep up,” said Barbara Guttman, one of the suite’s developers at NIST’s Computer Forensics Tool Testing project, “You don’t want to risk your copying software failing when you try to get data from some new computer that is critical to your case. So, we created these tools to help ensure that the copying software works effectively and transparently.” The federated testing tools allow authorities to run tests in advance on their digital forensic software to make sure ahead of time that it will not fail them when a suspect’s personal computer, media or device arrives in the forensic science lab. Guttman describes the suite as the three most critical tools for evidence acquisition and preservation, each addressing one aspect of the copying process. “One tool tests software for copying computer disks, while another tests mobile device data extraction software. These two test protocols were available previously, but the suite is now completed with a new third test for ‘write blockers,’ which are a sort of one-way valve for data-copying software. An effective write blocker allows data to flow only from the seized device to the copying computer, not the other way around. Later updates to the suite will address additional forensic functions,” said Guttman. The full suite is a freely available Linux file that anyone can download and burn to a blank CD. They can use the disk to boot their workstation and test their copying tools via a user-friendly interface. The NIST software also allows different forensics labs to exchange the results of their tests with each other, so that they can share the burden of exploring how well a copying method works on a specific platform and operating system. Running copying software through its paces generates a report that disparate organizations can share among themselves or with the world, allowing them to indicate whether they found anomalies during the testing or not. “Pooling these traceable results will mean less work for any given lab or organization,” Guttman said, “We don’t require they share the tests, but a rising tide should raise all boats.” Guttman cautioned that the tools will not ensure that a copying or digital forensic process is flawless, only that the results of the job are clearly visible to anyone. “Evidence doesn’t have to be complete to be admissible,” she said, “The key here is that copying does not introduce errors into the data that no one can see.” “Interest in federated testing will go beyond law enforcement agencies,” Guttman added, “Any organization that performs forensics such as civil law firms and corporate enforcement offices, will find a use for the test suite.”  

Use of ‘Likelihood Ratio’ not consistently supported by scientific reasoning approach ( -: Contributed by NIST :- ) Two experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are calling into question a method of presenting evidence in courtrooms, arguing that it risks allowing personal preference to creep into expert testimony and potentially distorts evidence for a jury. The method involves the use of Likelihood Ratio (LR), a statistical tool that gives experts a shorthand way to communicate their assessment of how strongly forensic evidence such as a fingerprint or DNA sample, can be tied to a suspect. In essence, LR allows a forensics expert to boil down a potentially complicated set of circumstances into a number – providing a pathway for experts to concisely express their conclusions based on a logical and coherent framework. LR’s proponents say it is appropriate for courtroom use; some even argue that it is the only appropriate method by which an expert should explain evidence to jurors or attorneys. However, in a new paper published in the Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, statisticians Steve Lund and Hari Iyer caution that the justification for using LR in courtrooms is flawed. The justification is founded on a reasoning approach called Bayesian decision theory, which has long been used by the scientific community to create logic-based statements of probability. But Lund and Iyer argue that while Bayesian reasoning works well in personal decision making, it breaks down in situations where information must be conveyed from one person to another such as in courtroom testimony. These findings could contribute to the discussion among forensic scientists regarding LR, which is increasingly used in criminal courts in the U.S. and Europe. While the NIST authors stop short of stating that LR ought not to be employed whatsoever, they caution that using it as a one-size-fits-all method for describing the weight of evidence risks conclusions being driven more by unsubstantiated assumptions than by actual data. They recommend using LR only in cases where a probability-based model is warranted. Last year’s report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) mentions some of these situations, such as the evaluation of high-quality samples of DNA from a single source. “We are not suggesting that LR should never be used in court, but its envisioned role as the default or exclusive way to transfer information is unjustified,” Lund said, “Bayesian theory does not support using an expert’s opinion, even when expressed numerically, as a universal weight of evidence. Among different ways of presenting information, it has not been shown that LR is most appropriate.” Bayesian reasoning is a structured way of evaluating and re-evaluating a situation as new evidence comes up. If a child who rarely eats sweets says he did not eat the last piece of blueberry pie, his older sister might initially think it unlikely that he did, but if she spies a bit of blue stain on his shirt, she might adjust that likelihood upward. Applying a rigorous version of this approach to complex forensic evidence allows an expert to come up with a logic-based numerical LR that makes sense to the expert as an individual. The trouble arises when other people – such as jurors – are instructed to incorporate the expert’s LR into their own decision-making. An expert’s judgment often involves complicated statistical techniques that can give different LRs depending on which expert is making the judgment. As a result, one expert’s specific LR number can differ substantially from another’s. “Two people can employ Bayesian reasoning correctly and come up with two substantially different answers,” Lund said, “Which answer should you believe, if you’re a juror?” In the blueberry pie example, imagine a jury had to rely on expert testimony to determine the probability that the stain came from a specific pie. Two different experts could be completely consistent with Bayesian theory, but one could testify to, say, an LR of 50 and another to an LR of 500 – the difference stemming from their own statistical approaches and knowledge bases. But if jurors were to hear 50 rather than 500, it could lead them to make a different ultimate decision. Viewpoints differ on the appropriateness of using LR in court. Some of these differences stem from the view that jurors primarily need a tool to help them to determine reasonable doubt, not particular degrees of certainty. To Christophe Champod, a professor of forensic science at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, an argument over LR’s statistical purity overlooks what is most important to a jury. “We’re a bit presumptuous as expert witnesses that our testimony matters that much,” Champod said, “LR could perhaps be more statistically pure in the grand scheme, but it’s not the most significant factor, transparency is. What matters is telling the jury what the basis of our testimony is, where our data comes from, and why we judge it the way we do.” The NIST authors, however, maintain that for a technique to be broadly applicable, it needs to be based on measurements that can be replicated. In this regard, LR often falls short, according to the authors. “Our success in forensic science depends on our ability to measure well. The anticipated use of LR in the courtroom treats it like it’s a universally observable quantity, no matter who measures it,” Lund said, “But it’s not a standardized measurement. By its own definition, there is no true LR that can be shared, and the differences between any two individual LRs may be substantial.” The NIST authors do not state that LR is always problematic; it may be suitable in situations where LR assessments from any two people would differ inconsequentially. Their paper offers a framework for making such assessments, including examples for applying them. Ultimately, the authors contend it is important for experts to be open to other, more suitable science-based approaches rather than using LR indiscriminately. Because these other methods are still under…