Masking the issue

The launch of the new European Standard EN50131 was supposed to change the security industry for the better. It meant the re-classification of installations into four separate 'Grades', with Grade 1 symbolising the lowest risk up to Grade 4, the highest risk.

Changes were driven, to a large extent, by the insurance industry keen on reducing risk, and settling primarily on Grade 3 as the accepted 'standard' (i.e. 'normal risk') for the majority of commercial applications.

Part of the change related directly to internal intruder detectors. Systems were to be updated in terms of better signalling capability, increased control panel event memory and levels of recommended detection etc. But the element that captured everyone's imagination was the issue of anti-masking. The key difference between Grade 2, 3 and 4 is that movement sensors at Grade 3 must be able to detect 'masking', i.e. something that has been placed over the sensor lens.

In headline terms, what the standard is trying to achieve is pretty clear: any attempt at masking a detector will initiate a test procedure or similar by the sensor and if a mask condition has occurred the sensor will signal the control equipment accordingly. Once the signal is received the control equipment will in turn indicate the condition locally or potentially at the ARC.

Standard ‘loosely written’

The standard has sent manufacturers scrambling to come up with something that is Grade 3 compliant, to avoid being left behind in the race to own the Grade 3 'space'. Unfortunately, the standard is somewhat loosely written. Some of the products currently available in the marketplace which rightly claim Grade 3 compliance and hence anti-masking capabilities, can in practice actually fall short of what most installers and insurers may assume to be the expected performance level.

Certainly this is the experience of several of the installers we have spoken to in recent weeks. One installer recently accompanied an NSI inspector on a tour of a new Grade 3 installation (Grade 3 installations require a minimum of two maintenance visits per annum) using compliant technology, and what he discovered was rather shocking. He found two detectors had gone to sleep, and two others wouldn't mask. Cheap technology, you may argue, but you would be wrong. And most importantly, this was Grade 3 compliant product. Anti-masking (according to installers we have spoken to) should mean that attempts at masking – for example through the use of sellotape, spray, glue, sticky notes etc – should trigger a mask alarm. The reality, however, is somewhat different.

Dual technology detectors, of course, rely on both technologies to be activated to confirm an alarm. In this example, however, an apparently anti-mask (Grade 3) detector was failing to work as had been designed. Range is also an issue. It's one thing to have a detector with an anti-mask range of say two or three inches, it is quite another when the range is two or three meters. On that basis, a detector in a room with, say, a 6ft ceiling could conceivably be constantly in alarm every time someone in the office gets up from their desk and leaves the room!

How much should the installer be expected to know about the product he chooses to use?

There is a view that masking for burglaries are virtually non-existent and the potential risk is therefore over-stated. But it does beg the question: why make the change in the first place? The Grades of alarm system exist based on increasing levels of resilience against attack by intruders with anticipated levels of alarm knowledge and tools of the trade.

Why the need for anti-masking?

Grade 3 systems are supposed to counter would-be burglars with good knowledge of alarm systems and a full range of tools at their disposal. If masking is hardly ever heard of, then why the need for anti-masking sensors? Perhaps, simply, to err on the side of caution. Or are there other areas such as ARC signalling methods which need closer examination?

There is a heavy irony here. The inconsistent performance of the Grade 3-compliant anti-masking detectors, whilst meeting the needs of the EN standards and insurance industry, may in fact be offering new dangers for installers when compared to their Grade 2 predecessors. Far from resolving the security issue, the new EN standard may be unwittingly compounding it. Grade 2, for the time being at least, may offer a less confusing performance evaluation for installers.

There is another, perhaps even bigger conundrum. If there is a break-in, then who is liable? Will it be the installer – accused of 'buying cheap', even when the systems are apparently fully complaint – or will it be the manufacturer? As already stated, performance and principles of Grade 3 sensor operations change from product to product and successful masking could occur.

How much should the installer be expected to know about the product they choose to use? There lies the rub. The overall grading of a system reverts to the lowest grade of technology deployed. Perversely, there may conceivably be Grade 2 installations offering better protection than their Grade 3 counterparts when catch performance is considered, even though not 'recognised' by the insurers.

Manufacturers have to play their part, and take their share of the responsibility. They need to be as informative as possible with installers (and end-users) in terms of what their products are capable of. Installers need to be able to make comparisons on an informed basis, not from over-hyped marketing literature, but in actual like-for-like tests and in real-life scenarios. Active Infrared, for example, is one masking technology route that some are exploring as having 'true' anti-masking capability and can be used to form part of the system where confirmation is required. This could be the way forward, especially whilst the industry gets its act together properly. Until that time, the industry needs to understand the limitations of some anti-mask technology in order to avoid the very real potential of damaged reputations, or worse, litigation.