Discount Offers

SIA Security Notebook SIA Approved Licensed Security

End Date: Friday May-19-2017 12:03:34 BST
Buy It Now for only: £5.75
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Personal Self Defence Spray UK's No1 Spray Legal Pepper Spray Clone UK Sale Only

End Date: Monday May-22-2017 10:46:38 BST
Buy It Now for only: £22.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Farb Gel UK Legal Self Defence Spray Personal Security Protection, Legal CS alt

End Date: Thursday Apr-27-2017 12:07:14 BST
Buy It Now for only: £8.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Security Patrol Police Army Cadet Boot Size 9

End Date: Friday May-19-2017 12:03:34 BST
Buy It Now for only: £27.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list
Visit Today : 1
Visit Yesterday : 1
This Month : 24
This Year : 114
Total Visit : 24203
Hits Today : 2833
Total Hits : 1669017
Who's Online : 1


Security guard suspended after being filmed grabbing 15-year-old …

A security guard grabbed a 15-year-old boy by the throat and told him Get out or I ll chuck you out during a shocking incident caught on camera.

A group of friends1 had been skateboarding2 in Cardiff city centre and were just heading to get something to eat when they were approached by officers and asked to leave.

A video of the incident – which has since been posted online – then shows one of the security guards grabbing schoolboy Luther Small by the throat, Wales Online3 reports. The security guard has been suspended with immediate effect .

Read More

The security guard approached the group of teens and told them they had to leave

Luther’s mum, Carol, said: Luther doesn t really want to take things any further.

“He accepts the guy overreacted but doesn t want him to be suspended . It s just one of those things. A video of the incident was posted online by Rhayna Mann, whose 15-year-old son, Riley, was also a part of the group of friends.

Posting the footage to Twitter, she wrote: Disgusting . Appalling . Shameful. Rhayna s husband, Jason Mann, added: My son and his friends were in Cardiff skating on Sunday . They decided to get some food at around 5pm.

Obviously one of the only places open at that time on a Sunday was St David s Shopping Centre.

They went in and took a seat in a caf , but they were approached by security and told they had to leave.

They were not misbehaving or playing up, but were told they had to leave because they had skateboards.

My son and his friends told the guards they didn t understand . They were only having food .

They hadn t even skated inside the centre.

But security kicked them out . They tried their luck at another entrance and the security guards were waiting for them there. This is when Luther was grabbed by one of the guards.

Read More

The officer puts his hand around the teen’s neck during the heated exchange

Jason says the management team at St David s have been in touch to explain the situation but the incident has left them feeling upset and angry.

Riley was OK when he came home – he skates a lot, so is used to having run-ins with people, Jason said.

But he s a good kid . I m not just saying that as his parent – Riley is a bright and well-mannered boy.

His mum was upset when she saw the footage, but I was just angry that someone in a position of power would abuse their rights.

The boys are 15 at the end of the day . Even if they were mouthy and the security guard felt justified in throwing them out, you don t grab a young boy by the throat.

Mark Nott, centre manager for St David s Cardiff, said: We have been made aware of this incident and the security officer involved has been suspended with immediate effect.

This is not the level of conduct we expect from our officers and we apologise to all parties involved.

A full investigation is now taking place and we are liaising with the customers concerned directly.


  1. ^ friends (
  2. ^ skateboarding (
  3. ^ Wales Online (

China draft cyber law mandates security assessment for outbound data

BEIJING China’s top cyber authority on Tuesday released a draft law that would require firms exporting data to undergo an annual security assessment, in the latest of several recent safeguards against threats such as hacking and terrorism.

Any business transferring data of over 1000 gigabytes or affecting over 500,000 users will be assessed on its security measures and on the potential of the data to harm national interests, showed the draft from the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC).

The law would ban the export of any economic, technological or scientific data whose transfer would pose a threat to security or public interests . It would also require firms to obtain the consent of users before transmitting data abroad.

The proposed law, which focuses on personal information security, comes just a day after state media reported government rewards of $1,500 to $73,000 for citizens who report suspected spies.

It is also an extension of legislation passed in November formalizing a range of controls over firms that handle data in industries the government deems critical to national interests.

Business groups have criticized the November law, which is effective from June, calling rules “vague” and claiming they unfairly target foreign companies with stringent requirements.

Chinese officials denied that the November law targets foreign firms.

Under the rules released on Tuesday, sensitive geographic data such as information on marine environments would also be subject to scrutiny . Destination countries and the likelihood of oversees tampering would also be factored in to any assessments.

The draft is open for public comment until May 11.

(Reporting by Cate Cadell; Editing by Christopher Cushing)

UK Government targeting WhatsApp is another security red herring

Written by Joe Westby, Researcher on Technology and Human Rights, Amnesty International.

Anyone who hoped that the debate about encryption had already been put to bed, sadly, was wrong . Today, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd will meet with technology companies1 including Facebook and Google to discuss encrypted messaging services, with a view to persuading the companies to gain access to encrypted communications. Earlier this week, in the wake of the Westminster terrorist attack, Rudd became the latest state official to blame encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp for ostensibly facilitating terrorist attacks . Meanwhile, yesterday the EU promised to put forward tough new rules2 on encrypted messaging in June. We have been here before3. As with earlier attempts by the UK and other governments to crack down on encrypted messaging apps, Rudd s proposal to force technology companies to give the police and intelligence agencies access to end-to-end encrypted messages is misguided, ineffective, and dangerous and risks undermining the rights of us all.

There is little good that can come out of Rudd s attack on end-to-end encryption, the particular technology used by WhatsApp and several other messaging apps . With end-to-end encrypted communications, no other party except the people in the conversation not even the company providing the service – can see the content of messages. Although on the face of it, it sounds reasonable to ask companies to surrender the communications of terrorists, in reality this is impossible without compromising the security and rights of all of the users of these services.

End-to-end encryption is an effective method of securing communications, including sensitive personal data, from falling into the wrong hands . There is consensus within the tech community that there is no way to put in place a system of special access (referred to as a backdoor ) to encrypted messages that could only be used by the intended state authorities . A door is a door is a door . If a backdoor exists, you have to assume that others be they criminals, hackers, or other governments will also figure out how to access the information. It is also now widely recognised that encryption is a vital enabler of human rights4, in particular the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression and opinion . Encrypting our information helps to create a zone of privacy online within which we are free to express our beliefs and ideas without fear of interference . Activists around the world rely on encryption to protect themselves from persecution.

Measures to weaken encryption on popular commercial services would only serve to undermine the human rights and information security of all the ordinary people using them and would still not stop people intending to commit criminal or terrorist acts from using end-to-end encryption. The widespread accessibility of encryption tools across the world means that it will be near impossible to prevent terrorist and criminal groups from using encryption in their communications. Only 1 out of 9 apps5 reportedly identified as safe or safest by the armed group that calls itself the Islamic State is not open source, meaning that the majority are freely available online and would not be affected by regulation in one jurisdiction. Moreover, it is critical to understand the context in which end-to-end encryption is being more and more widely introduced by companies .

We live in a golden age of mass surveillance . In December last year, the UK adopted the Investigatory Powers Act, one of the world s most far-reaching pieces of electronic surveillance legislation . Not only did it give government agencies access to huge personal data sets but also allowed them to undertake surveillance and hacking at a mass scale. Existing surveillance powers in the UK are already incredibly broad, and contrary to human rights in and of themselves . Worse still, we know very little about how these powers are used . But what we do know should give us pause.

We know, for instance, that the UK government has spied on Amnesty International6 . We know they have spied on confidential lawyer-client communications7 . We know that the government acted unlawfully8 in its data sharing arrangements with the USA. Human rights law does not prevent surveillance, provided it is carried out for a legitimate purpose, subject to adequate safeguards and oversight and, importantly, based on individualised reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing . In short, surveillance must be targeted.

End-to-end encryption limits but does not prevent this sort of legitimate, targeted surveillance . The widespread adoption of end-to-end encrypted messaging apps does, however, make the kind of untargeted, and unlawful, mass surveillance programs uncovered by Edward Snowden much more difficult. Terrorist attacks that deliberately maim and kill bystanders at random are an attack on all of our human rights . Preventing these sorts of acts, and bringing perpetrators to justice, are challenges that demand a strong and coherent response from government, industry and civil society.

But we must resist the impulse to chase seemingly easy solutions whose impacts are likely illusory and whose downsides are immense .

Weakening encryption on Whatsapp and others services only weakens security for all of us, rather than enhancing it.


  1. ^ meet with technology companies (
  2. ^ put forward tough new rules (
  3. ^ We have been here before (
  4. ^ vital enabler of human rights (
  5. ^ Only 1 out of 9 apps (
  6. ^ spied on Amnesty International (
  7. ^ confidential lawyer-client communications (
  8. ^ acted unlawfully (