ICT Today

26 I ICT TODAY The application of security-in-depth is affected not only by the cost of equipment, installation, and maintenance, but also by the more important aspects of effectiveness and functionality. Certainly, the highest consideration in an effective security methodology is its ability to prevent unauthorized penetration. Thus, any points of access through the perimeter boundary should be capable of preventing unauthorized access and be equipped to differentiate between an authorized and unauthorized user while reducing nuisance alarms. Access through perimeter boundary lines can be frequent and should be efficient to prevent unacceptable delays. Furthermore, if a perimeter access point is not user-friendly, it may be abused, disregarded, or subverted, thereby posing a security risk. Electronic sensors include motion detectors, infrared or microwave sensors, vibration detection infrared cameras, laser detectors, and ground-based radars. When applying the detection principle as part of the 5D methodology, it is important to note that all of these sensors serve essentially the same security functions. Although these technologies are similar to those normally deployed for interior protection systems, they usually come with somewhat higher installation and mainte- nance costs due to the extensive outdoor distances. PERIMETER INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS (PIDS) AND CONNECTIVITY Perimeter intrusion detection systems (PIDS) are designed to monitor and detect vehicle and personnel incursions at the facility's perimeter boundary. These systems employ either a single detection technology that is highly optimized or a combination of separate technologies, each providing its own unique detection methodology that is integrated into a seamless oper- ational platform. In general, single-technology systems achieve a lower probability of detecting incursion when compared to multi-technology systems; these multi- technology systems also achieve lower false alarm rates (FAR) and nuisance alarm rates (NAR) by leveraging the strengths of multiple detection modes. False and nuisance alarms are typically caused by uncon- trollable factors, such as wind, rain, ice, standing water, blowing debris, and wildlife and human activity in proximity to the perimeter. There are other sources including electronic interference, poor perimeter fence conditions or lack of preventive maintenance. When evaluating any technology for perimeter appli- cations, the FAR and NAR performance criteria provided by the manufacturer should be part of the decision process. When FAR and NAR performance factors are included in the design, the recommendations typically dictate that two or more disparate technologies should be deployed to ensure the most effective intrusion detection screen. These recommendations are based on the fact that any legitimate incursion is likely to be detected by all detection technologies. However, nuisance causes are unlikely to trigger an alarm across all detection methods and can be easily filtered. For example, the triggering of vibration alarms on a fence caused by wind or rain can be filtered out by verifying that video surveillance of that fence section did not detect a human in the area. What differentiates the systems deployed as part of PIDS is the application of a broad concept called data fusion or physical security information management (PSIM) that offers real-time situational awareness. This data fusion or PSIM platform leverages a wide array of sensors, surveillance techniques, data analyses, and communications capabilities and procedures; outputs and findings are brought together to enhance the ability of airport security response teams to monitor and respond to a wide range of alarms. New technologies are continually being developed and introduced into the marketplace. The following list represents the current state of technology and the When evaluating any technology for perimeter applications, the FAR and NAR performance criteria provided by the manufacturer should be part of the decision process.

• Cover