KEN KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ ALARM - SECURITY INDUSTRY LEGAL EMAIL NEWSLETTER / THE ALARM EXCHANGE You can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails? Change your spam controls and whitelist ken@kirschenbaumesq.com ****************************** Comment on Zwirn’s warning about operators working remotely August 27, 2022 ************************* Comment on Zwirn’s warning about operators working remotely from August 9, 2022 ************************* Ken We work with 4 different central stations. We’ve seen all of them have operators work from home either temporarily or permanently. In every single case our subscriber complaints over the quality of operator interaction has gone down. Respectfully, John Bazyk Command Corporation dba Advanced Lock & Alarm ************************** Response ************************** That’s interesting, but not sure that this is the case. *************************** Another comment **************************** Ken Central station operators working from home presents a potential problem not addressed by your discussion of Jeff Zwirn’s article. Over my 40+ years in the business I have toured several U. L. “Central Stations” and without exception a big deal was made regarding the security of the telephone lines serving the central station. Additionally a big deal was made over the “back-up generator” capacity in the event of a power failure. Alarm monitoring operator working from home ignores these considerations. Seth Oginz Security Consultants Unlimited ************************* Response ************************* Secure phone lines, back-up generator and other central station facility requirements would undoubtedly be absent in operator homes or remote work places. However I haven’t heard about the technology that central stations do employ when permitting operators to work remotely. For example, what happens when a remote operator needs to take a break, or loses phone or electric service? How does the central station know that the operator needs to be covered by another operator? Presumably a central station permitting remote operators has taken necessary precautions to meet these contingencies. How the communication pathways are secured or at least monitored so down time is discovered immediately is another issue. Maybe the central stations permitting remote monitoring can explain the technology they use to safely monitor accounts. **************************** Another comment **************************** Ken, You wrote: “As of now UL and professional central stations are endorsing the practice and generally industry norms and standards, when followed, will negate findings of liability.” This is substantially inaccurate. UL and these central stations (and TMA) are not even close to operating under general industry norms and standards – they are completely re-writing the standards to accommodate, IMO and others, the profit margins of the largest CS’s. UL is complicit and directly involved in advising these CS’s/TMA on how to accomplish their goals. Stephen Harper Dispatch Center, Ltd ************************* Response ************************* Don’t confuse my comments as an endorsement of remote monitoring practices. I don’t take a position, but my observation that the practice is now accepted practice in the industry is the reality, whether you like it or not. If UL permits it and some, may many, including the largest central stations, use remote operators, that creates the standards, not theoretical conjecture on potential liability. *************************** Another comment ************************** Ken- I agree whole heartily with Jeff and I think his concerns and warnings are right on. There has to be a huge difference between operators working in a supervised work environment and those working at home, where there are myriad distractions, kids, texting, pets to take out for walks etc.; Also, don't incoming signals roll over to a non-busy receiving station at the Central station? What happens at a home monitoring situation if the employees is dealing with a call signal at the time the next one comes in; do they automatically still roll over? But leaving the technical details aside (for the qualified technical guys) , it would seem to me that anyone in the security alarm space would be alarmed by this development (pardon the pun); it sure doesn't enhance the quality of the monitoring process as we now rely on unsupervised staff, and that can have serious consequences; so I agree with Jeff, when monitoring is transferred from a licensed central station facility to at home monitoring the customer needs to be advised, as I think it certainly has the potential for less quality monitoring; let’s remember the customer contract talks about alarm transmission by the "Alarm Company or its designee MONITORING CENTER"- that would seem to indicate, and give the impression, that the monitoring is done at a physical company location from which the monitoring is done, not from someone's home; similarly if a subscribe is required to sign a Monitoring Company's contract I doubt they reserve the right to monitor signals from someone's home, so it would seem the Monitoring Company may also have some additional liability exposure if a signal is received at a home monitor and not transmitted properly; presume the home monitor person continues to be a Company employee and is not just a subcontractor, unless the Company is trying to cut costs further; if the latter that certainly would raise a whole host of other liability and disclosure issues. Finally, when UL permitted home monitoring, did the regulation have requirements as to what type of ongoing supervision, equipment requirements etc. would be required at the "home monitoring site"- did they ever explain their rational for doing this? Understandable (maybe) during the height of the Covid pandemic, but times have changed as has Covid masking and other restrictions, so if that was the reason for it, why is this use still in effect? Regards Dennis Stern, Esq Of counsel to Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC ************************ Response ************************ All good points and certainly not a wrong position. Nevertheless, I am not aware of a lawsuit yet where the loss is blamed squarely on the at-home central station operator. There is likely to be such a claim sooner or later, and as you know, all it takes are two lawyers with different opinions to make a lawsuit. ************************** To order up to date Standard Form Alarm / Security / Fire and related Agreements click here: www.alarmcontracts.com *************************** To order up to date Standard Form Alarm / Security / Fire and related Agreements click here: www.alarmcontracts.com *************************** CONCIERGE LAWYER SERVICE PROGRAM FOR THE ALARM INDUSTRY - You can check out the program and sign up here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/concierge or contact our Program Coordinator Stacy Spector, Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304. *********************** ALARM ARTICLES: You can always read our Articles on our website at ww.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-articles updated daily ******************** THE ALARM EXCHANGE - the alarm industries leading classified and business exchange - updated daily ************************* Wondering how much your alarm company is worth? Click here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/what-is-my-alarm-company-worth ****************************** Getting on our Email List / Email Articles archived: Many of you are forwarding these emails to friends or asking that others be added to the list. Sign up for our daily newsletter here: Sign Up. You can read articles and order alarm contracts on our web site www.alarmcontracts.com ************************** Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC Attorneys at Law 200 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 516 747 6700 x 301 ken@kirschenbaumesq.com www.KirschenbaumEsq.com
