4 ms·
I used to cycle past Telehouse Docklands (in East London, part of LINX IXP) as part of my daily commute. I was always struck by the lack of physical security; a
by jamescun 11y ago
I used to cycle past Telehouse Docklands (in East London, part of LINX IXP) as part of my daily commute. I was always struck by the lack of physical security; all that was visible was a typical warehouse fence and a couple of cameras. However what was most troubling was the sheer density of unguarded under-pavement communication cabinets surrounding the site (of course I am only speculating that they are associated with Telehouse).
- kiba 11y agoSecurity is an extra cost that people pay. It does not produce food or produce anything. It only protect what you are producing or providing. Why should anyone spend money protecting cabinets from vandals when there's no vandals. Our society is also full of soft targets. Think events with crowds, or perhaps the malls and other area where it's clouded. Maybe you could jam the interstate system by strategically crashing cars at the same time. Should we then spend money on providing more well armed security guards? Creating excess amount of roads that nobody can fully utilize? Should we be terrified of highly competent boogeymen whose goal is to cause mayhem and chaos?
- rdl 11y agoTelehouse Docklands has a pretty high level of physical security for the building itself for an urban carrier hotel and especially in both a first world highly safe city and the U.K. specifically. They had special police with MP5s and stuff after a targeted attack.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]