Risk and Security Management

  • Uncategorized

SECURITY MANAGEMENT 4

Riskand Security Management

Riskand Security Management

Fromthe article in Kirschenbaum, why was the bank suing ADT Security?

Thebank decided to sue the defendant who was the security firm (ADT) inorder torecover or get paid for damages under the law of tort and contractsuppositions for the losses they experienced during a theft incidentof the bank.

Fromthe article in Kirschenbaum, what does the David Gutter Furs casehave to do with this case?

Beforerelocating to a new business place, the plaintiffwho was a fur dealer hired the defendant David Gutter to design,install and monitor any theft sensoryalarm system. After some time, December1986 many weeks after ADT occupied the newly equipped building, itsproducts worth $300,000 were stolen by unknown thieves during nighttime theft, in which the installed alarms did not sound. Thus, theplaintiff sued the defendant. However, the issue of negligence inDavid Gutter’s case appears to be a common element.It is theplaintiff’s act of negligence as well as a breach of contract thatthey entered into, which led to the conclusionof the case giving consideration to a limitationof clauses and contractual exculpatory. Nonetheless, the plaintiffargued that the clauses were not enforceable given the fact that thedefendant was vilely negligent.

FromGarcia in Chapter 16, what are the three components of a `ConsequenceMatrix`?

Itis not practical to offer protection to all assets in anorganization. Theactivesecurity system providesa minimum protection, yet complete to a given set of items.Therefore, consequential matrix according to Garcia (2007) is thecriteria for determining items to be protected depending onthe consequentialloss speculated. The components include upper regime whereby risksare thought or assumed to be intolerablenecessitating riskreduction measures. The second elementis the middle regimewhere factors such as cost and performance degradation act as risk,though can be regulated. Finally,there is the lower regimewhere recognized risks are taken to be negligible.

References

AbacusFederal Savings Bank, Appellant, v ADT Security Services, Inc., etal., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23,2017, fromhttps://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/abacus-federal-savings-bankappellantvadt-security-respondents

Garcia,M. L. (2007).&nbspDesignand evaluation of physical protection systems.Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.