Threat, risk & security strategist with strong crisis management experience. Talks about security and terrorism issues. Never knowingly going in the same direction as everybody else. Author of Protect Duty white paper
I'm disappointed to read this artical by James Clayton, with other articles about Evolv Technology, it has something of the witch-hunt about it. Only two weeks ago, I stood in a cold hangar in middle-England watching Nathan Bailey demonstrate the system to prospective clients. It's not the first time I've seen this. As always, he talked about the system's strengths and limitations. He showed it working successfully and unsuccessfully, and allowed those present to test the system with realistic threat items. I've only ever heard Nathan talk about layered approaches to security. He talked about testing to NPSA standards. Those present were security professionals, the people who Evolv target as customers. They understood what they were being told. Everybody knows that NPSA doesn't do that, they are the standards authority (clue's in the name James) and what Evolv have done is test to those standards. Why I think this is an appalling piece of biased journalism is the inclusion of a quote from a data ethics professor. It is not worrying that technology is replacing traditional methods. CCTV replaced the watchman, metal detectors replaced the pat-down, and full body scanners have made air travel safer for us all. Traditional methods are riven with points of failure and technology helps us minimise those. I can't see any quotes in this article from security professionals who understand how systems should be integrated and would tell you that there is no single solution. Let's be honest, this isn't even a very techy article. FOR CLARITY, I HAVE NO PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES, PAID OR UNPAID. I HAVE NO COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PLATFORM AND ACT INDEPENDENTLY ON ALL MATTERS https://lnkd.in/eQ67CvZJ