Security practitioners, wherever possible, should insist on SafetyAct Designated/Certified products. When the answer to a question is obvious, it’s called rhetorical; but this industry may not be seeing it that way. Picture me stamping my feet and yelling from the proverbial soapbox…

“The Science and Technology Department of Homeland Security offers an amazing program called SafetyAct. Every facility operator should only, and everywhere possible, be adopting SafetyAct technologies. Use of a SafetyAct technology provides unparalleled liability protection for a qualified terrorist act. There is a lot of money and liability at stake.”

If given the choice between a SafetyAct Certified/Designated explosive detection dog, or a dog that is not so designated, it really isn’t a choice. The SafetyAct provides liability protection beyond the scope of what a business is normally willing to carry. Considering the possibility of a qualified terrorist act creating liability that the underlying business cannot afford, any business person in their right mind would choose the SafetyAct dog.

So, why is the security industry pushing products downstream to their clients without this protection? Without mentioning this possibility? Why would a system integrator or a security consultant recommend anything other than a SafetyAct protected solution where available? Is there a lack of knowledge? Or are the Terrorist acts that have happened in many different types of venues, in various locations across the county, so remote of a possibility that SafetyAct is not something worthy of consideration?

Appreciate comments on this last notion.

Security practitioners who truly understand risk should, wherever possible, insist on SafetyAct technologies.