Comments

Clive Robinson • January 16, 2020 11:30 AM

Hmmm,

Short summary: careful auditing and a lot of police.

I wonder if they paid for the police assistance or not…

After all moving a load of old rocks and minerals etc even if they have been bashed about a bit is hardly “a public good” 😉

David • January 16, 2020 12:14 PM

@Clive, I respectfully disagree. Prevention of any crime is a public good. Should I have to pay for the police to protect me and my home? Should I have to pay for them to investigate a crime that impacted ONLY me, but not the public?

Crime is crime. When a criminal succeeds, it empowers criminals. It puts more money in the pocket of criminal enterprise. More resources for drugs, and illegal weapons purchases.

Furthermore, had there been a crime, the police would have to investigate it. Its likely a lot cheaper to prevent the crime then to investigate it after the fact.

Clive Robinson • January 16, 2020 12:38 PM

@ David,

I don’t know where you live but,

Should I have to pay for the police to protect me and my home?

In most places you do pay for the police and if you check they have no responsability in law to protect either you or your home.

Their only real responsability is towards “good order” in “public places” that used to be called “Keeping the Kings Peace” anything else above that is actually optional as is investigating and preventing crime.

Tiffany’s were in effect using the police as “Private Security” thus it was beyond the polices ordinary duties. In the UK you can request the asistance of the police in various ways on private property but you are expected to pay for it or reciprocate in some way (village fates etc in school playing fields is an opportunity for not just PR but a stand to do various things that will make their life easier including recruiting).

David • January 16, 2020 1:58 PM

@Clive,

I’m merely saying that the protection of this event was CERTAINLY the public good. As is usually the case, and I suspect was the case here, the police have discretion in what they consider a reasonable amount of protection that they will provide in the sake of the “public good”. Anything above and beyond that is at the responsibility of the requestor.

When you go to the large public event, like a sports match, the team owners did not pay for every hour of every officer’s time, but they may have paid extra for supplementary protection, if they felt it necessary.

In this case, I would not begrudge the NYPD for choosing to provide security in this matter, because a successful theft would have put $100,000,000+ worth of illegal money and goods on the streets of NYC, which would SIGNIFICANTLY been to the detrement of the “public good”.

Electron 007 • January 16, 2020 2:13 PM

Quite a number of years ago, Tiffany got in some kind of trouble for refusing to sell a diamond ring to a male customer.

There was some claim of discrimination, but it is unclear whether the rings that sell were simply not sized or intended for men to wear, or if the man was alleged to be gay, or simply hoping to surprise his fiancée or other female friend or family member.

There is a whole bridal registry industry that goes along with the bachelorette parties and wedding showers, misusing the 911 system to call the cops on guys for frivolous or made-up red-light-district criminal charges, for bragging rights among “the girls” or other motives.

Plenty of police misconduct to go along with rampant and organized female crime which is unprosecutable under the strict codes of Omertà and respect for women, Title IX etc., by which the D.O.J. operates.

Is there anything the ladies want to steal here?

Chris P. Bacon • January 16, 2020 2:42 PM

Is the “Security” in the title now being used to cast a larger net?
If this was a forum it would be called out for being off topic.
It certainly explains why there are so few posts – don’t you think?

MarkH • January 16, 2020 3:23 PM

@Bacon (ha, ha)

Since I started looking into the Schneier blog — nearly 20 years back — Bruce has written about a wide variety of security topics, to the sometimes furious annoyance of those wishing to exclude all but technical Infosec.

This post is about a substantial security problem, and the practical means by which an organization responded to it.

@Clive et al.:

In my experience, police presence to secure any organization’s activity or event must be paid.

For example, some businesses have a traffic cop in front of their driveway every evening to help manage the flow of their homeward-bound employees onto a busy road. In my region, the presence of the officer must be paid for.

Electron 007 • January 16, 2020 5:16 PM

In my experience, police presence to secure any organization’s activity or event must be paid.

For example, some businesses have a traffic cop in front of their driveway every evening to help manage the flow of their homeward-bound employees onto a busy road. In my region, the presence of the officer must be paid for.

That presents a serious conflict of interest with respect to the police officers’ authority to directly arrest suspects on criminal charges.

If the police are being paid by the business or organization’s management, then they are tempted toward complicity in serious organized crime in which the management might be involved.

At the same time, they are tempted to arrange false or unwarranted arbitrary arrests at the request of the owners or managers, for fear of losing the income from the security detail.

Ethically, such a corporation ought to hire private security guards who can be more loyal to the company without incurring a conflict of interest with law enforcement.

A pernicious police presence on any property is not a sign that all is well with the company books.

Ismar • January 17, 2020 1:08 AM

Publishing this story while all the diamonds are at a less secure location and giving the actual location away
“ The merchandise had to travel only 50 feet or so — Tiffany will occupy a former Nike store during the makeover — but security was tight.” is a security issue itself

Flanman • January 17, 2020 5:51 AM

@Ismar

Tiffany’s new location is an operating Tiffany’s retail store. The public needs to know where it is in order to shop there.

Electron 007 • January 17, 2020 6:17 AM

@Flanman

The public needs to know where it is in order to shop there.

It’s a cop shop. Unless you’re a cop yourself, or planning on getting married to a cop, why would you want to shop there?

Said cops are flashing bling and picking guys up in the wrong part of town. F off the property if a person don’t want to be arrested for somebody else’s guns and jewelry or lock-picking tools or something like that.

Jon • January 17, 2020 6:30 AM

1) Yes, the police probably were paid extra by Tiffany’s
2) No, while acting as private security they should NOT have been wearing city police uniforms
3) Nor carrying guns nor badges
4) Yes, it’s a huge conflict of interest
5) And yet, they do it anyhow.

Discuss? Heh.

J.

Jeremy • January 17, 2020 8:29 AM

@Clive:

and if you check they have no responsability in law to protect either you or your home.

Echoes of AG Barr’s recent comments about possible consequences for certain communities should they fail to show the proper appreciation of those who protect and serve.

me • January 17, 2020 8:53 AM

@Ismar

Tiffany will occupy a former Nike store during the makeover” is a security issue itself

that is what i thought too.

@Flanman

The public needs to know where it is in order to shop there.

yes but i guess that the security is worse than in the original location.
in the original location maybe they had huge safe like a bank one, the one you see in movies.

in the other location i doubt there is such a safe, so new location is more risky.
also now literally everyone know about this and that they have to move back sooner or later, if they missed first opportunity because everyone was silent about it now they might monitor when they come back.

vas pup • January 17, 2020 12:51 PM

Facial recognition: EU considers ban of up to five years
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51148501

“It proposed imposing obligations on both developers and users of artificial intelligence, and urged EU countries to create an authority to monitor the new rules.

During the ban, which would last between three and five years, “a sound methodology for assessing the impacts of this technology and possible risk management measures could be identified and developed”.

The proposals come amid a calls from politicians and campaigners in the UK to stop the police using live facial recognition for public surveillance.

Most recently the Kings Cross estate found itself at the center of controversy, when it was revealed its owners were using facial recognition technology without telling the public.

Campaigners claim the current technology is inaccurate, intrusive and infringes on an individual’s right to privacy.

A recent study suggested facial recognition algorithms are far less accurate at identifying black and Asian faces compared with white faces.”

The whole article is good.

vas pup • January 19, 2020 3:31 PM

I guess this part directly related to blog subject:
“Well before that, Tiffany officials had monitored social media, looking for hints of potential criminality. Tiffany hired a company that tracks social media and provided a list of key words like “move,” “727 Fifth Avenue” — the address of the old store — “6 East 57th Street” and the move date.”

Yeah, police and real security have their own more or less secret book of codes which substitute actual events, dates, you name it to avoid being caught by the method stated in above extract from the article.

MarkH • January 19, 2020 4:14 PM

@vas pup:

The title is (and IIRC has been for 20+ years) “Schneier on Security” … not “Schneier on Internet Security” or “Schneier on InfoSec”

It’s all directly related to the “blog subject”

vas pup • January 20, 2020 1:42 PM

@MarkH – burnt many times when posted information/links related to security at all, e.g. security in prisons (physical), during riots/police work, in mental health facilities, etc. and almost all were sanitized by Moderator.
So, I made conclusion as far post is from IT security the more probability it has the destiny to be sanitized 🙁
Best,VP

John • January 26, 2020 7:16 AM

Incredible as so many people comment on the use of police officers that are themselves volunteering to make extra hours for these kind of events where they receive more money paid by the companies (not the tax payers)… but just ignored that the company also had 30 security officers… so the police officers were there not because the store did not have their own security personal but essentially to make sure there wouldn’t be any problems in the public street where security officers would probably not have the same legal cover to perform their security duties… and if anything did happen they didn’t have to call the police because they were already there.

The real interesting information is the social network screening to make sure it wasn’t common knowledge the move it self.

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2020 6:54 AM

@ John,

Incredible as so many people comment on the use of police officers

If you go back to my comment where it started you will not it was just a half fun comment in response to @Bruces “… And a lot of police”, it kind of sounded like they were “doing the moving”.

It was just to add a bit of levity to what promised to be at heart fairly dull (it is after all a “Company moves bunch of old rocks and re cycled scrap metal to a new location” story).

However it appears to have touched a nerve for some reason, even with you some days later.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.