|
 |
|
|
A personal note from our Director
In the industry of Executive/Close Protection, unfortunately there are a large number of
questionable companies and individuals. There are many misleading and even false claims
made.
Sadly it can be difficult for members of the public, potential clients, and even other
security professionals to distinguish between what is fact, misrepresentation, and
outright deception.
As a company we pride ourselves in not only offering among the best services available,
but also in educating those who do not have an inside understanding of this industry.
You may ask "If these questionable companies are able to deceive even professional
people, what hope does someone like myself who lacks an 'inside understanding' have?"
Through discussions with trusted professional friends and colleagues from around the
world, I have put together some tips to assist with this problem. These tips should only
be used as a guide in trying to identify potential misrepresentations and deceptions.
NOTE: We are in no way claiming or intending to imply that because a company or
individual uses any (or all) of the points listed below that they are disreputable. Each
and every company/individual needs to be investigated separately and a decision made based
upon personal research.
- Ties to Government
It is possible that a questionable company will try to make you believe that they are
linked in some way to a Government. This can be done by making statements such as
"approved by" or "established under" government authority or
guidelines. What you need to keep in mind is the following fact:
* Every company is established under some government authority or guidelines in one way
or another
All companies must register or hold licences with relevant government bodies and follow
specific legislation to be allowed to operate. Therefore is such claim false? Technically,
maybe not. Does it mislead the public in to believing something that is not true?
Possibly.
Suggesting or even implying non-existent links to a country's government is often a
serious offence and governments tend to be interested in prosecuting false claims.
However, if a claim is something along the lines of "Established under the Department
of the Attorney General", you can almost be guaranteed of an association. Either that
or the claimant will find themselves in serious trouble. Another point:
* True Government associations are not kept secret
By this, I mean if a true link exists between the government and another entity, that link
will be clearly stated. E.g. The US Secret Service comes under the US Treasury Department;
the Australian Protective Services (APS) is a division of the Australian Federal Police
and comes under the authority of the Justice Department.
If a link exists, and the entity is not classified, why would they withhold under whom
they are granted their authority?
- Classified, Sensitive, & Confidential
Questionable companies may attempt to hide behind the all too familiar banner of
information or associations being "classified" or "confidential." Ask
yourself the following questions:
* If they really are classified, then how do I know about them, if I lack appropriate
government security clearance?
* If an association really is classified, then why is it being spoken about?
Having previously held private employment in a position that required a specific level of
government security clearance, I can tell you that simply holding clearance does not give
you right. Along with security clearance comes the following restriction: "Need to
know." If you fall under the "doesn't need to know this particular
information" category, you will not be told. This runs true with the military,
police, and even private industry.
So if a legitimate company really does hold some sort of security restriction they would
certainly understand the "need to know" requirement. Why then would they
publicise this fact to those who "don't need to know?" Ask yourself this:
"If they really are classified, why do I know about them?"
Note on Confidentiality: Client and operational confidentiality is extremely
important and should never be compromised. However it is important to
differentiate between standard confidentiality, and claims that are intended to add a
false aura of secrecy and importance. The bottom line remains: You don't keep a secret
by broadcasting that you have a secret to keep.
The above information is only a portion of an article currently being written by the
Agency's director. There are many more areas yet to be covered on this serious matter.
Please return to this page regularly keep updated and informed
Send mail to webmaster@auspa.com
with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2003 Australian Special Protection Agency
|
|
