Proposal Date: The purpose of this proposal Is to outline my plans for a recommendation report. I will be comparing two different security measure tools, besides smarted and security cameras to protect Penn State Harrisburg classrooms, severed rooms, main entrances and student dorm for Penn State Harrisburg. I will briefly describe the situation, including what they are using now.
Next I will list the two security tools hat would help as well as relevant qualities of each one, elaborating and describing as necessary. Case study: Penn State Harrisburg is a branch campus of Penn State university with a growing number of students enrolled each year. The enrolled number of students in 2013 for Penn State Harrisburg was 4441 and Increased In 2014 to 4519. With Penn State Harrisburg campus being 218 acres, security needs to make sure no intruder gets on the premises that should not be here.
Right now they have security cameras, security on campus, and cards for staff but it takes the security takes 3- 5 minutes to get to he Intruder and the Intruder could easily break Into a classroom or held somewhere in one these rooms with just a lock on it or someone could easily steal a maintainer person’s card to get in a room. One experience I had last year was when 2 guys who were homeless got on campus and I was sitting with a friend near Limited and they asked what campus this was and If there were any parties going on campus.
We didn’t really tell them anything and asked another guy beside us and left their things in front of Limited building and went inside. About 3-5 minutes later the security on amp’s came asking if saw 2 guys with stuff on them coming though that way and we said yes and told the campus security they were In Limited building. Most security consultants say that rapid communication will solve response time as well as training annually will help reduce the response time.
Bob Lang was once a security consultant and former director of Homeland Security at Georgia Tech university, he quoted on saying “Communication has and will be the primary need in any incident. ” (Winkle, 5) The problem Is they need a more efficient way of keeping anyone who Is not opposed to be on campus access to certain places that can be entered easily. When deciding on how to approach this, we need to choose the best and most reliable alternative, so that Penn State Harrisburg students, facility, and staff are safe and know who Is allowed to be here.
Criteria for evaluation: cost Difficulty of implementation Complexity Operation Times Data structure and storage Audience: Primary: The primary audience for my recommendation will be the head of the IT department or head cyber security chiefs at Penn State Harrisburg and University Park. These people are very technically skilled, and know most of the technical terms I will use. They want to balance the cost and makes sure it is possible to do Secondary: The secondary audience for my recommendation report will be the board of both University Park and Penn State Harrisburg, chancellor of Penn State Harrisburg, and president of Penn State.
They will understand the security terms a little, but not the security technical terms I will use. This group wants to select the cheapest implement choice. Tertiary: The tertiary audience for my recommendation port will be the students, and staff that work or go to class in the facilities. Some are familiar with cyber security / computer terms while some are not. I will use a keyword in this section. Alternatives: 171450753427500 Live Fingerprint scans: The live finger print scans fast and are able to identify the person getting into the area.
It keeps a log on who enter it and at what time, and can be sent to a storage center computer in the security/police place on campus. It is user friendly and does not make a lot of mistakes. It’ll tell who can be in that area as well as who can’t. I would say this is the cheapest alternative because “more commonly used as compared to iris scanners because they are more cost-effective, also, they are fast and easier to use. ” (Biometric. Com 7) It uses 60 to 70 points of differentiation to show who it is. 019675923925 Iris recognition: This would determine if the person is that person. An Iris recognition uses mathematical pattern-recognition techniques on video images of the irises of an individual’s eyes to identify the person. It would cause an intruder on campus a headache trying to get into a place to hide on campus. This is most secured alternative because “the iris remains more or less the same throughout a person’s life while fingerprints may alter overtime. “(Biometric. Com 7) It is also more accurate and uses over 200 points of differentiation to show who it is.