The issue of physical security addresses various actions, which an officer in charge can take so as to protect, assess property, and buildings against any introducers. When one opts to implement physical security that protects the perimeter of a wall or a building, the three level that needs protection include the inner perimeter, the interior and the outer perimeter (Deutsch, 2016). If three security forms can be implemented at each phase, then the physical security system would be more efficient.
In terms of definition, the outer perimeter of a building is identified by the actual lines of the property (Weingart, 2000). Thus, while securing the outer perimeter of a building, the goal should always be aimed at controlling who can drive or walk onto the premise (Deutsch, 2016). The most extreme way of securing a perimeter is through the use of a barbed wire fence and the gate protected by an armed officer.
However, in some extraordinary cases, a simple hedge would be more than enough. When a person ways on the options of the nature of the security measure to implement, a person must figure out and underline the risks of an intruder’s entrance to the building with the average costs of the security measures implemented. The two most important security concepts that are involved in the security of a perimeter are Territorial Reinforcement (TR) and the Natural Access Control (NAC).
Perimeter devices are traditionally installed on windows, exterior doors or glasses as protective devices and detects whenever intruders force themselves in restricted areas. They are composed of foils, magnetic contacts, piezoelectric glass sensors and vibrators (Deutsch, 2016). Even motion or outdoor photoelectric maybe considered but have never been common in residential settings. The interior devices are at times called ‘space detectors,’ and the common circumstances under that are photoelectric beams and option detectors. Under no circumstance can an intruder be detected unless they crossed a traffic boundary or physically inside a restricted area.
The security of the interior dimensions should be the final phase of the security and comprises of the internal structures of the perimeter or the building (Deutsch, 2016). In order to monitor the security of a building more efficiently and accurately, the security cameras are the most effective ways since they record any evidence of a crime that may help in future investigations. However, motion detectors can also be used to detect the presence of security guards, volunteer floor marshals, and intruders (Weingart, 2000). Nonetheless, electronic access systems are also significant and can be applied to monitor traffic within the facility thereby, controlling the number of unauthorized people who enters the protected or ‘out of bound’ areas.
The inner perimeter of a building consists of windows, doors, and walls. The protection is normally accomplished effectively through the use of alarm systems, locks, and keys. The main purpose of the keys and locks if to lock out intruders. Electronic Access Control Systems (EACS) are also significant in monitoring the internal flow of the traffic in the building. The alarm system would warn whenever the perimeter is accessed unlawfully. While designing the perimeter of any security system, it is important to keep the control keys safer (Weingart, 2000). It should be a security issue whenever any unauthorized person has duplicates of the access keys without the knowledge of the officer in charge.
In summary, while many means availed to provide interior and perimeter security overlap (for instance cameras and security officers can protect the interior or the perimeter), reasoning that are based on the aforementioned three levels are significant. In other words, attempts to implement two more (three) physical security guidelines within each particular phase will aid in the implementation of the most relevant physical security measure.