Security by consent
Security people are "only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare," but often the relationship between security and everyone else is fraught. Brendan O'Connor explores how another group charged with protecting everyone handled this problem with humor, kindness, and a commitment to service.
|Talk Title||Security by consent|
|Conference||O’Reilly Security Conference|
|Conf Tag||Build better defenses|
|Date||November 9-11, 2016|
Are you tired of knowing everything, of having people ignore “the security person” because “reasons,” and then having “I told you so” as your only comfort? Sick of the hostile relationship between security and development, security and operations, security and HR, and/or security and everyone not wearing a black T-shirt? There’s a better way. Faced with the challenge of building a security function into a society that wasn’t sure it wanted one (but which nonetheless needed it), Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne set out what became known as the Peelian principles of policing, or policing by consent, which provide an effective model for running a security group that stands with its organization rather than against it. We are, after all, as the principles state, “only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare.” Join us to become a security Bobby—where a commitment to service is mandatory but the silly hat’s only needed if you like it.