Subscribe to RSS - interactive services

interactive services

DEFENDER differentiated by ADT

As ADT’s first ‘Premier Provider’, DEFENDER will work more closely with ADT on testing, other projects
 - 
07/09/2014

INDIANAPOLIS—DEFENDER Direct has long been ADT’s top dealer. Now DEFENDER and ADT have formed a new partnership in which they’ll be collaborating on new initiatives.

Richard Ginsburg named CEO of Central Security Group

Former Protection 1 CEO will take CSG national
 - 
07/08/2014

TULSA, Okla.—Super-regional security company Central Security Group today named Richard Ginsburg as CEO. Ginsburg, who as CEO of Protection 1 grew it into one of the top three security companies in the country from 2001 to 2010, said he wants to grow CSG into a “significantly larger company.”

Customer service and the Internet of Things

Readers say diagnostic tools and IT training for technicians is key to customer satisfaction
 - 
06/18/2014

YARMOUTH, Maine—The Internet of Things phenomenon has left few industries untouched, and security is no exception. While the connected home has opened up a virtually limitless frontier for RMR, it has also spawned new demands for training and customer service that companies would do well to consider if they hope to minimize attrition.

Privacy and the connected home

 - 
Wednesday, June 18, 2014

One of the most visible illustrations of the Internet of Things movement, the connected home continues to open up an expanding world of RMR possibilities for the security industry. But according to a recent CNN Money report, it’s also opening up some new and murky legal terrain that, like many Internet-related matters, raises fundamental questions about privacy and information rights.

The headline is as blunt as it is Orwellian: “Cops can access your connected home.” While the article references smart home technology writ large, the piece mostly focuses on the video aspect of the connected home and the potential for cameras to generate footage that could someday be used in legal proceedings.

In the article, Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst from the American Civil Liberties Union, is quoted as saying, “We’re seeing law enforcement across a variety of areas arguing that they should be able to access information with lower standards than before the electronic age.”

The source also notes that information from the home can provide a “window into the things you’re doing in your private space.”

Still, authorities cannot get their hands on such footage without a warrant or subpoena, as the article notes. A judge authorizes a warrant when the prosecutors show “probable cause” that evidence exists that could be linked to criminal activity. Subpoenas, however, have a somewhat looser standard, requiring only that the data being sought is relevant to a given investigation.

Security companies offering interactive services are typically very sensitive to the notion that customers have lingering concerns about privacy. Andy Stadler, division manager, advanced services, at Security Partners, illustrated that awareness in our conversation a few weeks ago about the company’s recent adoption of Alarm.com’s new video verified alarm service. During the development phase, he said, Security Partners and Alarm.com took pains to erect privacy measures that would perform the dual task of giving central stations the information they need without infringing on the customer's privacy.

This left me wondering: With home automation offerings so widespread, could the implementation of more robust and consumer-friendly privacy measures emerge as a real differentiator? Are the more tech-savvy, privacy-conscious consumers going to start asking companies how long they store footage on their servers? Are they going to ask how and why authorities might access data generated in their homes? Are they going to ask about what cyber security measures are being put in place to thwart hacks?

This will be a fascinating industry topic to watch on several levels. At the business level, it could just be that the companies most attentive to privacy protections will view public skepticism as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.