Do officers use any kind of guard tour "checkpoint" scanning system?

Civil Security Service does not use a "guard tour" system. In fact, we strongly caution against using companies that rely on them, especially if they're presented to you as a client benefit.

NVCSS has evaluated numerous guard tour systems and found them all to be flawed to an unacceptable degree. The nature of these systems do not align with our goal of providing the highest quality services possible.

A typical guard tour system consists of one or more surface-mounted tags and a handheld scanner.

Guard tour systems come in many forms, but always have two major components:

• Small data "tags" permanently mounted at various locations throughout a site;
• A handheld "wand" device, which can wirelessly read the data on the tag when in close proximity.

Usage is straightforward; personnel carry the wand with them and, as they arrive at each location, press the wand to the tag. The wand records the date, time, and the tag's information.

At the end of each shift, the wand's data is downloaded into a computer, generating a report that "proves" officers have completed their patrols.

The Reality

Guard tour systems are typically presented to clients as a way to ensure accountability and transparency. Manufacturers say that usage can reduce overhead costs and time, as supervisors won't be needed to see if personnel are doing their jobs properly.

Despite these claims, guard tour systems offer almost no real benefit to clients. Three primary weaknesses exist:

• The system can be easily deceived to make it appear as if work is being completed when it isn't.
• The system cannot be properly audited; data records can be fabricated by personnel, the security company, or both.
• The system does nothing to ensure quality of service, just the bare existence of it, and that's only when it's not being cheated.

Regardless of marketing or hardware design, all guard tour systems use the same wireless technologies. This is most commonly radio-frequency identification, or "RFID."

Some newer systems claim to be superior because their tags use Near Field Communications, or "NFC," to function. Others claim their products use "AI" or rely on QR codes and smartphones in place of wands.

No matter the underlying technology, all guard tour systems have the same flaws, outlined below.

Physical Vulnerabilities

Guard tour systems can be compromised through a variety of physical means:

Damage and Sabotage

Personnel can easily remove and/or destroy tags, then report them unusable. Alternatively, they may repeatedly drop or handle the wand roughly until it stops functioning.

While a selling point of guard tour systems is its low cost, personnel know that repeatedly replacing damaged components can quickly add up until the system is either left non-functional or usage is no longer mandated due to the hassle.

Ironically, damage is more likely to occur with companies that rely heavily on guard tour systems. Personnel are often underpaid and treated poorly, which further emboldens "rebellious" behavior and animosity towards their company and clients.

In some particularly egregious instances, personnel may be directly incentivized to cause damage because it can only make their own jobs easier. Some may even destroy tags when they're off the clock — or after being fired — in the spirit of helping their colleagues.

Tag Relocation and "Cloning"

As mentioned earlier, all guard tour systems use some form of wireless tag technology, often RFID and sometimes NFC. Both are similarly vulnerable to data manipulation.

RFID and NFC tags store information that can be wirelessly read by any generic reader device. The technology is not proprietary, and while in theory it can be secured, it's very expensive to do so. Since guard tour systems are seen by most security companies as a cost-cutting measure, they tend to buy based on price alone.

Consequently, resourceful personnel may sometimes "clone" tag information and store copied tags in a single secret location. This can be accomplished with about $20-30 worth of equipment and allows them to complete their required wand scans without having to go to each location.

Usage Vulnerabilities

Guard tour systems are cheap for a reason; the inherent flaws of their design and technology creates unintended consequences in practice.

Data Accuracy

The wands used by guard tour systems are usually "dumb" — that is, they are not connected to any network or computer system. This means that each wand must be manually configured, and the methods for doing so vary widely.

For instance, personnel may scan a tag, then manually adjust the wand's time forward by one hour and scan the same tag again to fake a second "hit." In this fashion, the entire shift's checkpoints can be completed in a matter of minutes, leaving plenty of time to lounge around, browse social media on their phones, or go to sleep.

Auditing Issues

The records generated by guard tour systems are every bit as vulnerable as its hardware components.

Although each manufacturer offers their own software, what it produces is usually nothing more than a glorified spreadsheet. Anyone with access to the data can add or remove entries undetectably — there is virtually no way to audit the records or uncover misconduct.

Security supervisors typically see upper management as "the enemy," especially since they're often treated as poorly as the personnel beneath them. It's not uncommon for middle managers to take sides accordingly, using their software access to fabricate the records needed to protect "their" guys.

Distrust and Hostility

A significant percentage of security personnel see guard tour systems as an adversarial tool— in other words, the presence of the technology itself implies that they are seen as untrustworthy.

Consequently, guard tour systems often foment resentment among personnel and skew their perceptions of their job. Suddenly, their responsibilities no longer centered on service and protection, but rather on hitting the same checkpoints over and over.

Personnel that work in these conditions quickly become jaded and learn to do the absolute minimum, and any notions of being proactive are eventually stamped out completely.

Service Quality

It's important to understand the nature of guard tour systems and the results they produce.

Even in the absolute best case scenario, the data produced by a guard tour system should never be conflated with a verifiable record of patrol activity. It is merely an alleged record that someone was physically present at a given location.

Some unscrupulous companies will even use these records against clients who complain that they're not getting what they paid for — the nature of these systems will always favor the security company over the client because it's "proof" that a billable service was rendered, even if it was ultimately worthless.

Numerous other issues exist. For instance:

• Guard tour systems don't indicate how long personnel spend at each location, nor what actions are taken (if any). They also punish personnel for being proactive, since their efforts do not count towards their "tags per shift" requirements.
• Guard tour systems create a reluctance to provide assistance or help others, especially when doing so will take them off their rigidly pre-established routes or make them late to their next checkpoint.
• Guard tour systems do not verify officer quality or conduct. Personnel can lumber around half-asleep, wearing jeans with an untucked uniform shirt, listening to music on headphones. Their scan records will be as valid as anyone else's.
• Guard tour systems cause personnel to develop "blinders" and become complacent. There is nothing to gain from being observant because their responsibilities end once a checkpoint is scanned.
• Bad actors quickly learn the exact location of each tag and target areas without them, confident they won't be interrupted.
• Bad actors quickly learn the exact routes personnel take between each tag, making it easy to avoid getting caught.
• Bad actors quickly realize that security only cares about scanning tags — as long as this isn't interfered with, they can essentially do whatever they please.

True Accountability

There is no one "packaged" measure that can ensure true accountability in public safety. It requires a systematized approach and a combination of management techniques, officer support, and modern technologies to ensure true accountability and quality of service.

It's worth pointing out that law enforcement agencies do not use guard tour systems to make sure officers are patrolling their beats. Instead, other measures are in place to ensure accountability, such as:

• Body worn cameras
• In-car fleet cameras
• Live GPS monitoring and tracking
• Mandatory reporting procedures
• Policies that make certain actions non-discretionary
• A culture of responsibility and proactive performance

We've studied the efficacy of these measures and implemented much of them into NVCSS operations, some at great cost. Our willingness to commit to these investments is what sets us apart from other service providers — and makes us the right choice for those who want the highest standard of care available.