Rule for defense security: 'Do more with less'

Jan 1, 1998 12:00 PM, George Partington

Military security has a lot in common with civilian security, says Mike Toscano, chairman of the Physical Security Equipment Action Group (PSEAG) of the Department of Defense. To provide a safe and secure work environment, despite downsizing and cost-cutting, the military is continually looking for commercial and government-developed products that get the job done efficiently, Toscano says in an interview with Access Control & Security Systems Integration. And in some cases, he says, these products improve security while reducing personnel expenditures.

Toscano oversees the research and development, testing and evaluation of physical security equipment for U.S. armed forces. He leads a team that selects or designs, evaluates and acquires the most efficient and productive security equipment at the most reasonable cost to ensure the effective protection of DoD resources. His responsibilities include protection of personnel, classified information and material and readiness assets around the globe.

"Each service receives funding from the physical security equipment action group and has specific technological areas of responsibility," says Toscano. "For example, the Air Force is the lead service for the exterior physical security equipment, personnel protection systems, etc., and the Navy has explosive-detection, shipboard and waterside systems, as well as others. Through the action group meetings, each service is kept informed and has input into all the programs."

Here are other interview excerpts:

Q From the military perspective, what is "security"?

A Referring to a DoD directive, the official definition of physical security is, "that part of security concerned with physical feasures designed to safeguard personnel; to prevent or delay unauthorized access to equipment, installations, material documents; and to safeguard them against espionage, sabotage, damage and theft."

Q What are the top priorities regarding security for the military?

A Each service has specific areas of responsibility. These are ongoing and are always considered a priority. At any given time, the priority level can change based on the current threat. For instance, as a result of the Khobar Tower incident (a truck bomb exploded outside the building June 25, 1996, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding several hundred others; see related story, page 1), our responsibilities extend to the force protection arena with direction and priorities being passed down to the action group from the Programs and Requirements Branch of the Joint Staff (J-34). Right now, those priorities are explosives detection, with an emphasis on vehicle bomb detection, detection of other weapons of mass destruction, explosives mitigation, wide area surveillance and security, personal protection, active barriers, ground sensors, under-vehicle surveillance and thermal imagers. Again, as the threat level changes, the priorities will change as well.

Q What are some of the challenges that make providing security for the military different than for the civilian arena?

A With the wide variety of DoD facilities, from office buildings to base installations, air fields and waterside facilities, the actual security required at any given location can vary drastically. We can't afford to lose certain assets that have no monetary equivalent; they are too important to lose no matter what the cost is to protect them. Coupled with the ever-changing threat levels and diminishing budgets, the biggest challenge lies in being as proactive as possible and being able to respond to user needs in a more timely fashion. Part of the physical security equipment action group's role is to keep the users informed of what security equipment (commercial or government developed) is out there that may be able to satisfy their particular requirements.

Q What objectives are similar?

A I think we both share the objective of wanting to provide a safe and secure work environment with the best technology available. Much of the security equipment used is typically the same whether it is civilian or military.

Q How much do you emphasize controlling access to buildings and why? What about access to certain areas inside buildings?

A Because of our size, that is impossible to answer specifically. Access into DoD sites varies by service and location. We would obviously put a heavy emphasis on those areas such as nuclear weapons sites or any other key asset areas as required. Each service has the responsibility for determining what is required at each site.

Q What makes your access systems well-suited for military applications?

A We use commercial, off-the-shelf equipment wherever possible. With the variety of commercially available equipment, there is adequate technology to support most of the military applications and configurations. There is no single technology or vendor that is more suited to military applications than others that I am aware of.

Q How extensively do you use CCTV? card/keypad access control? biometrics? other technologies? Why?

A We use all of those things to varying degrees. It's hard to quantify it. We use CCTV and card/keypad access control extensively right now. We will be using more biometric systems when they become more robust, reliable and cost-effective.

Q How do your security systems interface and interact with other automated (or manpower) systems?

A Our systems are the same as those used in the commercial sector. There is no specific "military" version. It is up to each service to determine the requirements of what systems are most suitable for their use. In making this determination, interface and interaction with existing systems is a critical factor. How they actually accomplish this is site-specific.

Q How do you balance the use of security personnel with the use of security equipment?

A Like every agency who has to do more with less, we try to maintain a reasonable balance. However, with the reduction of funds and downsizing trends, physical security equipment will lessen the impact of personnel reductions and in some cases, further them along. In our business there will always be "a man in the loop;" we do not rely entirely on technology for all of our physical security needs. We just need to be smarter about how we maintain an adequate balance without jeopardizing the security of assets that we are trying to protect.

Q What do you try to achieve with surveillance?

A We are always trying to anticipate, assess, deter, delay or deny our adversaries' attentions. Surveillance is needed to determine what actions are necessary and allow us to respond to any situation.

Q How has your approach to security changed in the last 10 years?

A Like the civilian side, most of what we do is incident-driven. In the past, we spent more time and money on in-house R&D. Now we focus heavily on commercial, off-the-shelf equipment and only conduct R&D when there is no commercially available equipment. This expedites the delivery of equipment tremendously. We also have more joint programs, inter-agency cooperation and sharing of information than ever before. This prevents duplication and at the same time broadens our base of information, which can result in significant savings of both time and money.

Q What challenges do you foresee for the future?

A Doing more with less is always going to be a challenge. It's impossible to predict the impact of the current restructuring efforts at the DoD. We will continue to do our best to maintain the highest level of security that we can with the resources allocated. We will continue to strive for more joint programs and inter-agency efforts. This again will prevent duplication of efforts and save time and money.

Q What factors will make security systems for the military change?

A When we have incidents such as Khobar Towers and Oklahoma City occur, the focus on security gets reviewed and reassessed. We always have our eyes to the future and look for emerging technologies that will enable us to do our job better for less. Industry will play a significant role in meeting future threats.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue