Building security
-
At a former job, security to the buildings is important since the company is in a competitive market and needs to prevent information leaks. I understand most of the security measures, but I couldn't believe this one case:
A co-worker came in on the weekend to grab her laptop to go home and get some work done - just a quick in and out. She had her baby with her. A security officer happened to see her, and stopped her: her baby didn't have a visitor badge! He wouldn't let her into the building. On Monday, her manager complained to security, but they responded with "rules are rules".
-
Spineless dicks.
-
You should never trust babies. And what if the baby got seperated from its escort, need to be able to recognize that the baby is not a regular employee. I am just shocked that the company did not get the baby to sign a non disclosure agreement.
In the general spirit of ranting about security policy short comings, security will always get anal about one or two very specific things, but neglect all the obvious security vulnerabilities. Like not encrypting laptop hard drives.
-
@dhromed said:
Your dick has a spine?Spineless dicks.
-
@Ben L. said:
@dhromed said:
He didn't tell you about that time with the fish?
Your dick has a spine?Spineless dicks.
-
@Anketam said:
In the general spirit of ranting about security policy short comings, security will always get anal about one or two very specific things, but neglect all the obvious security vulnerabilities. Like not encrypting laptop hard drives.
That's an easy one. It's because the department responsible for not letting people in is different from the department responsible for encrypting the laptop.
Yeah, TRWTF is corportaions.
-
@JoeCool said:
A security officer happened to see her, and stopped her: her baby didn't have a visitor badge! He wouldn't let her into the building.
Solution: "Then you won't mind holding her for a few minutes, will you, Mr. Security Officer? Now, she doesn't take well to strangers, so you'll have to rock her and sing 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' constantly to keep her from fussing. But don't rock too hard or she'll vomit all over your suit. And she smells like she's due for a diaper change. Sorry, I'm all out of wipes, but I promise I'll reimburse you for the cost of your handkerchief on Monday."
-
@serguey123 said:
@Ben L. said:
@dhromed said:
He didn't tell you about that time with the fish?
Your dick has a spine?Spineless dicks.
Good times.
-
This story reminds me of some cases I've heard of, where people tried to board an aircraft with scale model figurines in their luggage (usually when going to a model show, the figures being ones they want to enter in a competition there, for example), and security insisting they can't bring them because the models have swords or guns. Never mind that these swords and guns are made of plastic, are something like 1/35th or 1/72nd scale and [i]don't work[/i] … the rules are there to be obeyed.
-
Reminds me of a phrase I picked somewhere. If your job does not allow you to use human judgement, don't be surprised when you're replaced by a robot. ... I think the original context was about teachers, but it works with security, too.
-
Guy I used to work with was legally blind. His guide dog (who used to fall asleep on my foot in meetings) had her own ID badge.
-
@da Doctah said:
Guy I used to work with was legally blind. His guide dog (who used to fall asleep on my foot in meetings) had her own ID badge.
Actually that's kind of cool. If it wasn't required I would have requested one anyway if I were him.
-
@Anketam said:
In the general spirit of ranting about security policy short comings, security will always get anal about one or two very specific things, but neglect all the obvious security vulnerabilities. Like not encrypting laptop hard drives.
My current contract's security guards are anal about:
1) VISITORS MUST SIGN IN AND OUT. OR ELSE.
2) Contractors/Temps (except those of us wearing polo shirts or better, because we're clearly real employees) MUST SIGN IN AND OUT OR ELSE.They somehow manage to miss:
1) The fact that long-term contractors/temps don't get photo badges (or even a photo loaded into the prox card system that shows them a photo of everybody who scans a card).
2) The fact that nobody wears their badge in a visible location. The accepted means of opening security doors is for men to butt-bump it, and women to beat it with their purse.
3) The fact that, in the interests of being personable, they all buzz through everybody they've seen at least once before (not once before that day. Once before ever). This makes it much less onerous for me to go pee (in order to get to the nearest bathroom, I have pass 3 security dooes) but ignores a whole pile of real security issues.
-
In 1992 I was living in Bangkok with my 4 month old baby girl. We visited Hong Kong and tried to get into a gogo bar. They wouldn't let her in - underage. The main offered to babysit while I went in, but I explained that it wasn't me who wanted to go into a gogo bar, it was the baby. She went in to all the Patpong gogo bars, she loved the music and the lights and all the attention she got from the ladies there. I would walk in the door and some lady would grab the kid from me. I would sit down and order a drink. Ten minutes later the kid had been passed from hand to hand and was now on the other side of the room, looking around to see that Daddy was still there. After twenty minutes she had made a complete revolution of the room, I paid for my drink and we left. She loved it.
Security guards are paid to be secure, not reasonable.
-
-
Signing somebody in to a building means that the company is accepting some responsibility for that person.
As you cant explain to a baby e.g. how to leave the building in the event of a fire, they dont want that responsibility.
And its always easier for a security grunt to say 'no' than work out a rational solution.
It would seem based on G4S in the UK that in fact for many of their "trained and vetted security guards" the only English word they can say is 'no' as in 'no I wont bother coming to work at the Olympics'.
-
@mikedjames said:
Signing somebody in to a building means that the company is accepting some responsibility for that person.
Really? The only reason we have people sign in (and out) is in case there's a fire, and can account for everyone at the muster point. Ditto with a care home I visit that a relative is in.
-
@mikedjames said:
Signing somebody in to a building means that the company is accepting some responsibility for that person.
As you cant explain to a baby e.g. how to leave the building in the event of a fire, they dont want that responsibility.
And its always easier for a security grunt to say 'no' than work out a rational solution.
It would seem based on G4S in the UK that in fact for many of their "trained and vetted security guards" the only English word they can say is 'no' as in 'no I wont bother coming to work at the Olympics'.
That's because they're all at train stations, harassing passengers who bought a ticket from the machine, only to find out it's only valid for 37 seconds on the seventh Thursday in February. Not that the machine had that info in the first place.
-
So they won't let an infant into the building at Spacely Sprockets because it's a security risk, but there's no problem if the child's mother wants to take a work laptop off-premises so she and her new friend Mr. Cogswell can have a meeting where they look at a bunch of interesting secure information together...
-
@JoeCool said:
At a former job, security to the buildings is important since the company is in a competitive market and needs to prevent information leaks. I understand most of the security measures, but I couldn't believe this one case: A co-worker came in on the weekend to grab her laptop to go home and get some work done - just a quick in and out. She had her baby with her. A security officer happened to see her, and stopped her: her baby didn't have a visitor badge! He wouldn't let her into the building. On Monday, her manager complained to security, but they responded with "rules are rules".
Clearly ex-TSA. Probably still ticked that he couldn't fondle the infant.
