Sunday, February 15, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
No security, No claim money
News
Posted On Wednesday, February 04, 2009 at 05:08:53 PM
Burglary insurance claim rejected for security lapse
Mayank Soni -SV Road
If you do not take adequate security measures for the safety of your shop, the insurance firm will not be liable to honour the burglary claim.
Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed VR Jewellers’ complaint against The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as he had not taken proper precautions to prevent burglary, violating the insurance policy rules.
Partners of the showroom had taken an insurance policy against burglary for their shop from Oriental Insurance valid from January 30, 1996 to January 29, 1997. In October 1996, unidentified thieves entered the shop, breaking open the iron grill window and escaped with jewellery worth Rs 13 lakhs.
On inspection, the insurance company’s surveyor found the thieves stole the jewellery from the cupboard with original keys, which the owners kept in the cash counter. Further, the surveyor pointed out that the window was such that anyone could enter the shop easily, making the shop susceptible to thefts at night.
AS Vidyarthi, defence advocate argued that the insurance proposal form clearly mentions that ornaments should be stored in a standard safe, otherwise the policy cover would not operate. At the time of burglary, owners had kept the ornaments in a locally-made almirah that was not theft-resistant.
Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed PN Kashalkar, “If ornaments worth about Rs 14 lakhs were kept in the shop, it was the duty of the complainant to engage services of watchman at least at night. A common watchman on the road available for the locality would not be sufficient as good security measures on the part of the complainant.”
However, partner Manilal Bheda’s contention was that they had shown the cupboard to the company’s representative before the policy was issued, and they had not taken any objections. He says, “What is the use of taking a policy if we do not get a claim? I will have to consult my lawyer about going in appeal.”
mayank.soni@timesgroup.com
Rate Me...
Mail this Article Print this Article
BACK TO SECTION STORIES
Post Your Comments
Posted On Wednesday, February 04, 2009 at 05:08:53 PM
Burglary insurance claim rejected for security lapse
Mayank Soni -SV Road
If you do not take adequate security measures for the safety of your shop, the insurance firm will not be liable to honour the burglary claim.
Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed VR Jewellers’ complaint against The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as he had not taken proper precautions to prevent burglary, violating the insurance policy rules.
Partners of the showroom had taken an insurance policy against burglary for their shop from Oriental Insurance valid from January 30, 1996 to January 29, 1997. In October 1996, unidentified thieves entered the shop, breaking open the iron grill window and escaped with jewellery worth Rs 13 lakhs.
On inspection, the insurance company’s surveyor found the thieves stole the jewellery from the cupboard with original keys, which the owners kept in the cash counter. Further, the surveyor pointed out that the window was such that anyone could enter the shop easily, making the shop susceptible to thefts at night.
AS Vidyarthi, defence advocate argued that the insurance proposal form clearly mentions that ornaments should be stored in a standard safe, otherwise the policy cover would not operate. At the time of burglary, owners had kept the ornaments in a locally-made almirah that was not theft-resistant.
Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed PN Kashalkar, “If ornaments worth about Rs 14 lakhs were kept in the shop, it was the duty of the complainant to engage services of watchman at least at night. A common watchman on the road available for the locality would not be sufficient as good security measures on the part of the complainant.”
However, partner Manilal Bheda’s contention was that they had shown the cupboard to the company’s representative before the policy was issued, and they had not taken any objections. He says, “What is the use of taking a policy if we do not get a claim? I will have to consult my lawyer about going in appeal.”
mayank.soni@timesgroup.com
Rate Me...
Mail this Article Print this Article
BACK TO SECTION STORIES
Post Your Comments
Schneier on Security
A blog covering security and security technology.
« Friday Squid Blogging: Cooking a Humboldt Squid | Main | Communications During Terrorist Attacks are Not Bad »
December 1, 2008
Lessons from Mumbai
I'm still reading about the Mumbai terrorist attacks, and I expect it'll be a long time before we get a lot of the details. What we know is horrific, and my sympathy goes out to the survivors of the dead (and the injured, who often seem to get ignored as people focus on death tolls). Without discounting the awfulness of the events, I have some initial observations:
- Low-tech is very effective. Movie-plot threats -- terrorists with crop dusters, terrorists with biological agents, terrorists targeting our water supplies -- might be what people worry about, but a bunch of trained (we don't really know yet what sort of training they had, but it's clear that they had some) men with guns and grenades is all they needed.
- At the same time, the attacks were surprisingly ineffective. I can't find exact numbers, but it seems there were about 18 terrorists. The latest toll is 195 dead, 235 wounded. That's 11 dead, 13 wounded, per terrorist. As horrible as the reality is, that's much less than you might have thought if you imagined the movie in your head. Reality is differentfrom the movies.
- Even so, terrorism is rare. If a bunch of men with guns and grenades is all they really need, then why isn't this sort of terrorism more common? Why not in the U.S., where it's easy to get hold of weapons? It's because terrorism is very, very rare.
- Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks. None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports, fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public transportation, anything. Even metal detectors and threat warnings didn't do any good:
"If I look at what we had, which all of us complained about, it could not have stopped what took place," he told CNN. "It's ironic that we did have such a warning, and we did have some measures."
He said people were told to park away from the entrance and had to go through a metal detector. But he said the attackers came through a back entrance.
"They knew what they were doing, and they did not go through the front. All of our arrangements are in the front," he said.
If there's any lesson in these attacks, it's not to focus too much on the specifics of the attacks. Of course, that's not the way we're programmed to think. We respond to stories, not analysis. I don't mean to be unsympathetic; this tendency is human and these deaths are really tragic. But 18 armed people intent on killing lots of innocents will be able to do just that, and last-line-of-defense countermeasures won't be able to stop them. Intelligence, investigation, and emergency response. We have to find and stop the terrorists before they attack, and deal with the aftermath of the attacks we don't stop. There really is no other way, and I hope that we don't let the tragedy lead us into unwise decisions about how to deal with terrorism.
EDITED TO ADD (12/13): Two interesting essays.
Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:03 AM • 148 Comments • View Blog Reactions
To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter.
'Super cop' is no solution to terrorist threat
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
INDIA:
The Mumbai terrorist attack was one more occasion for the Indian politicians to call for calm, peace and national unity. Political parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist) convened a special Politburo session and repeated the rhetoric, in addition to demanding that the Government of India approach the UN Security Council. The Hindu fundamentalists like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) made use of the incident to stir up further anti-Pakistan, essentially anti-Muslim, sentiments.
The Union Home Minister Mr. Shivraj V Patil resigned. The Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh convened urgent meetings with high-ranking officers, ministers and defence chiefs. The meeting decided to speed-up the formation of a Federal Investigation Agency and to set up four new centres of the National Security Guards (NSG) in the country.
The final word was that of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Indian National Congress. Mrs. Gandhi gave the ultimatum that her party will tolerate no more terrorism and called upon the Indians to eradicate it from the country. The question is whether the Government of India has any responsibility to prevent such incidents, or whether the people has to embark upon justice delivery themselves?
Among many other things, the Mumbai terrorist attack serves as the latest reminder of the condition of the law and order apparatus in the country, and of the police in particular. As stated after many other former incidents of similar nature, India's foreign intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), claimed that it had passed over information to the Maharashtra State Police well in advance that a terrorist attack on the city was very likely. The RAW further put the blame upon the local police for its lack of preparedness.
The fact remains that the Maharashtra State Police, like any other state police force in the country, can hardly do anything to avert these incidents. The state of policing in the country is in such demise that it has completely severed its contact with the people. Most police officers contact the members of the public only to demand bribes. Corruption in the police service is at such levels that even in order to lodge a complaint the complainant has to pay a bribe.
Police brutality is so rampant in the country that the sight of a police uniform is enough to scare an ordinary person, particularly among the poor population. Information, independent of its nature, has to be forced out of the ordinary people. Information obtained under the threat of violence is tainted and cannot be acted upon. Terrorists are different from the ordinary people in the sense that they have money, better training and equipment at their disposal to achieve their goals. They can bribe the police and are in fact doing so.
A month ago, some suspects taken into custody from the state of Kerala on the accusation that they were recruiting youngsters from the northern districts of the state for terrorist activities in north India and abroad, claimed that so far their operation went without any hindrance because they were able to bribe some police officers in the state. In fact many officers in the Kerala state police had no clue that terrorist recruitment cells were in full swing in the state until the identity cards of some terrorists who were recently killed in the state of Kashmir were recovered from their personal belongings. The identity documents were issued in Kerala pinpointing their residential address in the state.
To expect an ordinary Indian to approach the local police with information is an impossibility in the country. An example is the statements made by the parents who lost their children in the infamous 2006 December Noida serial murder case. The case began after the recovery of the skeletal remains of missing children in Nithari village in the outskirts of Noida city close to New Delhi.
The investigation of the case relieved that when the parents approached the Noida police to lodge complaints about their missing children, the police refused to register their complaints. When the parents persisted, they were chased away by the police with the threat that if they returned false cases would be registered against them accusing them of selling their children. The parents went away from the police station, since they were poor and could not afford to pay bribes to the police to get their complaints registered. An administration that expects the ordinary public to freely approach the local police with information is consciously ignoring the reality.
The public mistrust in the local police is not the result of an overnight incident. It is the crystallization of years of experience. Without drastic changes in policing, this mistrust will not only continue, but will increase. Every incident of police failure brought to the people's attention will further isolate the police from the people. A law enforcement agency which lacks the trust of the people cannot maintain law and order. An officer who serves in such a police force essentially suffers from demoralisation.
No government, state or central, that has governed the country has ever tried to address the deep-rooted problems of policing, and thereby the law and order in India. Politicians across the board use the police for their short-term political interests. The police reciprocate their affinity to the people in power by letting them to be exploited.
Today in India, the police serve the rich and the powerful. The police is a demoralised state agency that lacks the hope of improving their own condition. A police force that cannot investigate a petty crime efficiently cannot prevent terrorism, it can only promote it.
The Mumbai incident like many other former incidents will soon be forgotten. Those who will remember it are those who lost their loved ones. But unfortunately they do not have the political or financial clout to influence the policy makers in India.
The windfall of the Mumbai incident for the Government of India is evident. The Federal Investigation Agency will soon be formed. They will also assume the role of a 'super cop'. The super cop and the Agency he represent will be an additional reason for the ordinary policeman for further demoralisation. India does not need a super cop. It rather requires a normal and people-friendly police force.
Otherwise people will increasingly start taking things in their own hands. One need not look very far to see examples of this. The day before yesterday, in Khatoli town of Muzzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh state, a person was lynched by the public for suspected theft. In 2008 there were more than a dozen cases of public lynchings reported in India. Hence, people have started taking things in their own hands long before Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's request. There is no doubt that the Indians are united – in their distrust of the police and the politicians.
The national media and the civil society groups in the country have a greater responsibility in this juncture. If the media and the civil society groups in the country try to reflect more of the people's voice than vested interests, there is an increased possibility for these institutions to in fact persuade policy makers and politicians to meet the people's demand. The relatively lesser degree of impartiality and openness of the media and the civil society in India are the two serious impediments that prevent these institutions from reaching out to the people. On this front they somewhat equate themselves with the Indian police.
The Government of India is likely to initiate farcical policies on the pretext of countering terrorism in the country without addressing the deep-rooted problems in policing. The continuation of these policies also means the failure of the media and the civil society organisations in the country. It will be a n unfortunate reflection of their lack of understanding of the realities at the grass roots.
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Posted on 2008-12-02
Back to [AHRC Statements 2008]
more
INDIA:
The Mumbai terrorist attack was one more occasion for the Indian politicians to call for calm, peace and national unity. Political parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist) convened a special Politburo session and repeated the rhetoric, in addition to demanding that the Government of India approach the UN Security Council. The Hindu fundamentalists like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) made use of the incident to stir up further anti-Pakistan, essentially anti-Muslim, sentiments.
The Union Home Minister Mr. Shivraj V Patil resigned. The Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh convened urgent meetings with high-ranking officers, ministers and defence chiefs. The meeting decided to speed-up the formation of a Federal Investigation Agency and to set up four new centres of the National Security Guards (NSG) in the country.
The final word was that of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Indian National Congress. Mrs. Gandhi gave the ultimatum that her party will tolerate no more terrorism and called upon the Indians to eradicate it from the country. The question is whether the Government of India has any responsibility to prevent such incidents, or whether the people has to embark upon justice delivery themselves?
Among many other things, the Mumbai terrorist attack serves as the latest reminder of the condition of the law and order apparatus in the country, and of the police in particular. As stated after many other former incidents of similar nature, India's foreign intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), claimed that it had passed over information to the Maharashtra State Police well in advance that a terrorist attack on the city was very likely. The RAW further put the blame upon the local police for its lack of preparedness.
The fact remains that the Maharashtra State Police, like any other state police force in the country, can hardly do anything to avert these incidents. The state of policing in the country is in such demise that it has completely severed its contact with the people. Most police officers contact the members of the public only to demand bribes. Corruption in the police service is at such levels that even in order to lodge a complaint the complainant has to pay a bribe.
Police brutality is so rampant in the country that the sight of a police uniform is enough to scare an ordinary person, particularly among the poor population. Information, independent of its nature, has to be forced out of the ordinary people. Information obtained under the threat of violence is tainted and cannot be acted upon. Terrorists are different from the ordinary people in the sense that they have money, better training and equipment at their disposal to achieve their goals. They can bribe the police and are in fact doing so.
A month ago, some suspects taken into custody from the state of Kerala on the accusation that they were recruiting youngsters from the northern districts of the state for terrorist activities in north India and abroad, claimed that so far their operation went without any hindrance because they were able to bribe some police officers in the state. In fact many officers in the Kerala state police had no clue that terrorist recruitment cells were in full swing in the state until the identity cards of some terrorists who were recently killed in the state of Kashmir were recovered from their personal belongings. The identity documents were issued in Kerala pinpointing their residential address in the state.
To expect an ordinary Indian to approach the local police with information is an impossibility in the country. An example is the statements made by the parents who lost their children in the infamous 2006 December Noida serial murder case. The case began after the recovery of the skeletal remains of missing children in Nithari village in the outskirts of Noida city close to New Delhi.
The investigation of the case relieved that when the parents approached the Noida police to lodge complaints about their missing children, the police refused to register their complaints. When the parents persisted, they were chased away by the police with the threat that if they returned false cases would be registered against them accusing them of selling their children. The parents went away from the police station, since they were poor and could not afford to pay bribes to the police to get their complaints registered. An administration that expects the ordinary public to freely approach the local police with information is consciously ignoring the reality.
The public mistrust in the local police is not the result of an overnight incident. It is the crystallization of years of experience. Without drastic changes in policing, this mistrust will not only continue, but will increase. Every incident of police failure brought to the people's attention will further isolate the police from the people. A law enforcement agency which lacks the trust of the people cannot maintain law and order. An officer who serves in such a police force essentially suffers from demoralisation.
No government, state or central, that has governed the country has ever tried to address the deep-rooted problems of policing, and thereby the law and order in India. Politicians across the board use the police for their short-term political interests. The police reciprocate their affinity to the people in power by letting them to be exploited.
Today in India, the police serve the rich and the powerful. The police is a demoralised state agency that lacks the hope of improving their own condition. A police force that cannot investigate a petty crime efficiently cannot prevent terrorism, it can only promote it.
The Mumbai incident like many other former incidents will soon be forgotten. Those who will remember it are those who lost their loved ones. But unfortunately they do not have the political or financial clout to influence the policy makers in India.
The windfall of the Mumbai incident for the Government of India is evident. The Federal Investigation Agency will soon be formed. They will also assume the role of a 'super cop'. The super cop and the Agency he represent will be an additional reason for the ordinary policeman for further demoralisation. India does not need a super cop. It rather requires a normal and people-friendly police force.
Otherwise people will increasingly start taking things in their own hands. One need not look very far to see examples of this. The day before yesterday, in Khatoli town of Muzzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh state, a person was lynched by the public for suspected theft. In 2008 there were more than a dozen cases of public lynchings reported in India. Hence, people have started taking things in their own hands long before Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's request. There is no doubt that the Indians are united – in their distrust of the police and the politicians.
The national media and the civil society groups in the country have a greater responsibility in this juncture. If the media and the civil society groups in the country try to reflect more of the people's voice than vested interests, there is an increased possibility for these institutions to in fact persuade policy makers and politicians to meet the people's demand. The relatively lesser degree of impartiality and openness of the media and the civil society in India are the two serious impediments that prevent these institutions from reaching out to the people. On this front they somewhat equate themselves with the Indian police.
The Government of India is likely to initiate farcical policies on the pretext of countering terrorism in the country without addressing the deep-rooted problems in policing. The continuation of these policies also means the failure of the media and the civil society organisations in the country. It will be a n unfortunate reflection of their lack of understanding of the realities at the grass roots.
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Posted on 2008-12-02
Back to [AHRC Statements 2008]
more
Security Guard Training
Introduction
The Security Guard Act of 1992 mandates the training and registration of security guards and the approval of private security training schools. The Act also requires that certain private security training must be approved and that all private security trainers must be certified. The Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Public Safety provides administrative oversight for private security training in New York State. The New York State Department of State, Division of Licensing Services has oversight responsibility for the registration of all security guards.
If you have questions about registration, you must direct them to the Division of Licensing Services. You can reach them by phone at (518) 474-7569, by fax at (518) 474-7739, or by email at licensing@dos.state.ny.us. You can also get answers to many of your licensing questions at the Department of State web site.
Training Requirements
All security guards are required to complete an 8 Hour Pre-Assignment Training Course prior to applying to the Department of State for a Security Guard Registration Card, followed by a 16 Hour On-the-Job Training Course for Security Guards within 90 days of initial employment as a security guard, and annually complete an 8 Hour Annual In-service Training Course for Security Guards every year thereafter.
Armed guard applicants must possess a valid NYS pistol license pursuant to Penal Law 400.00 and must complete a 47 Hour Firearms Training Course for Security Guards prior to applying for a Special Armed Guard Registration Card. Starting one year from the date of completion of the 47 hour firearms training course, holders of a Special Armed Guard Registration Card must annually complete an 8 Hour Annual In-service Training Course for Armed Security Guards every year thereafter.
Section 89-n of the General Business Law of New York State provides for various exemptions and/or waivers of training based on previous Municipal Police Training Council approved law enforcement training. Locate the title and the status that identifies your experience, and then click on the link below the appropriate training column to be directed to the appropriate list of approved security guard training schools, waiver form or contact information.
Separation from service is defined as retirement or resignation from the position.
The Security Guard Act of 1992 mandates the training and registration of security guards and the approval of private security training schools. The Act also requires that certain private security training must be approved and that all private security trainers must be certified. The Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Public Safety provides administrative oversight for private security training in New York State. The New York State Department of State, Division of Licensing Services has oversight responsibility for the registration of all security guards.
If you have questions about registration, you must direct them to the Division of Licensing Services. You can reach them by phone at (518) 474-7569, by fax at (518) 474-7739, or by email at licensing@dos.state.ny.us. You can also get answers to many of your licensing questions at the Department of State web site.
Training Requirements
All security guards are required to complete an 8 Hour Pre-Assignment Training Course prior to applying to the Department of State for a Security Guard Registration Card, followed by a 16 Hour On-the-Job Training Course for Security Guards within 90 days of initial employment as a security guard, and annually complete an 8 Hour Annual In-service Training Course for Security Guards every year thereafter.
Armed guard applicants must possess a valid NYS pistol license pursuant to Penal Law 400.00 and must complete a 47 Hour Firearms Training Course for Security Guards prior to applying for a Special Armed Guard Registration Card. Starting one year from the date of completion of the 47 hour firearms training course, holders of a Special Armed Guard Registration Card must annually complete an 8 Hour Annual In-service Training Course for Armed Security Guards every year thereafter.
Section 89-n of the General Business Law of New York State provides for various exemptions and/or waivers of training based on previous Municipal Police Training Council approved law enforcement training. Locate the title and the status that identifies your experience, and then click on the link below the appropriate training column to be directed to the appropriate list of approved security guard training schools, waiver form or contact information.
Separation from service is defined as retirement or resignation from the position.
about us
We Offer Professionally Trained Guards for:Factories, Residential & Office buildings, IT Complexes, Shopping Centres, Construction Sites, Clubs, Hospitals, School, Special Events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
