Subscribe to Monitoring Matters RSS Feed

Monitoring Matters

by: Daniel Gelinas - Thursday, January 24, 2008
I can't seem to get away from this false alarm topic lately. Here's a video from a Florida TV station reporting on a non-profit organization that has racked up over $2,000 in false alarm fees in the last year. The non-profit says that a fire sensor installed in the kitchen went off every time the stove was turned on and the situation got so ridiculous they had to set up a makeshift stove outside so they could cook. The most interesting part of the piece, however, was a comment that the fire department must respond to all alarms, even cancelled alarms, from residential centers like this one. That was news to me. I guess I understand the intention of this policy, but it really eliminates the effectiveness of verification as a way to reduce false alarms, huh? I wonder if anybody's keeping track of how many false alarms are the result of policies like this? Sounds like wasted efforts to me.
by: Daniel Gelinas - Tuesday, January 22, 2008
So after a few days on backorder from my favorite local bookstore, I finally got around to reading Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston. The main argument is this: taxpayers foot the bill for responding to false alarms which equals the profits reported by the security industry. Hence, the free lunch reference. Here’s the argument verbatim: “These profits are huge because the alarm industry does not pay its largest single cost, labor to check out alarms. The taxpayers pick up this expense. Each time the police check out an alarm it costs more than $50, the police in Seattle and other cities have determined. The average alarm goes off more than once each year. The police responded to about 38 million alarms in 2000 at a total cost to taxpayers of $1.9 billion. The burglar alarm industry collected $7.9 billion from residential and commercial burglar alarm customers that year. So if the industry’ estimates are reliable, it means that profits were almost $1.9 billion, almost exactly the value of the taxpayer subsidy in having police check out false alarms.” Johnston concludes with this: “The burglar alarm industry charges hefty fees for a service that costs it very little. Then the industry dumps onto the taxpayers the real costs of providing the very service it sells. This is economic pollution sold to people under the guise of making them safe. In fact, it makes them less safe.” The “safe” argument that Johnston tries to work into his argument is fairly weak, in my opinion, and a manipulation of numbers, but I won’t divert to that right now. Instead, I would say that the alarm industry is certainly aware that false alarms are an issue, but the real question is: How will the industry deal with this negative public image? Any ideas?
by: Daniel Gelinas - Friday, January 11, 2008
Good thing there’s no snow in the weekend forecast up here in Maine because it turns out I have some reading to do. I just read an article from The Oregonian about a new book written by Pulitzer Prize winner and New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston titled “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)” that apparently has a large section dedicated to the public cost for false alarms. Of course, I haven’t read it yet, but based solely on this excerpt, I’m thinking this isn’t a good thing for the security industry: "The burglar alarm industry," Johnston writes, "charges hefty fees for a service that costs it very little. Then the industry dumps onto the taxpayers the real costs of providing the very service it sells. This is economic pollution sold to people under the guise of making them safe. In fact, it makes them less safe." Uh oh. My dad was the first one who directed me to this book after he heard an interview on NPR, so know your customers are reading it and you should, too. But, in case you've already made weekend plans, I’ll take some notes and give you a better summation on Monday.
by: Daniel Gelinas - Friday, January 4, 2008

Despite all the clamor in the security world about the looming analog deadline, this mainstream news article points out the more widespread panic about analog getting the axe. Since I've personally experienced tunnel vision about this issue from a security-only perspective, I enjoyed reading about irked GM customers who discovered that the cars they bought were equipped with analog OnStar units that wouldn't work come February and couldn't be upgraded despite being less than five years old. BUT, GM did issue some customers a $500 voucher towards the purchase of a new GM vehicle ... And people say the US car industry is floundering. AND, I thought the author did a decent job of including the woes of the security world in the article--towards the bottom of course, but how else will they get you to read the whole thing? However, this article, I can't say the same for. It too was about the analog issue, but frankly, it was just awful. Here's a few of my favorite choppy sentences (granted, it is broadcast writing - never trust anything you hear on television): In home security and fire alarm systems, the change only effects back-up systems. Primary systems function using land phone lines. But if those lines are ever effected by weather or cut by burglars the security system switches to its back-up. The back-up is usually a cellular phone line. If the connection is analog, it must be changed or else security companies would never receive an emergency signal alerting it to call 911. "As long as your [land line] telephone is working, we're going to receive signals from the [security system]," said Vinton security expert Scott Bolen of Alert Security Services.