WildBill wrote:
As Xander stated, the security for FedEx and UPS is different than most. I have never worked for such a facility so I am not familar with how their tracking and security work. I merely stated that at my company I would never be checked when I leave to see if the name on a package matched my own.
Maybe the guy at FedEx could have made a deal with the guard searching his belongings. If you have the desire you can figure out how the security system works and ways around it. How do drugs and other stuff get smuggled into jails when they are surrounded by prison guards and have multiple checkpoints and searches? My point is that if you have dishonest people working for you they are going to steal from you regardless of your security system. This guy didn't get caught stealing the guns until another guy on the street got caught selling them.
I have quite a bit of experience assessing, designing, and managing security systems and operations for both distribution center and corporate environments, and investigating thefts from them as well.
An office environment is much different than a distribution facility, and the security requirements and controls are different. However, even in well run high security corporate environments, you can't get a package out of the building without a package pass for that specific item authorized by the appropriate level of management. Tolerance for workers departing with unidentified and uncleared packages from a distribution center environment would be a major exception to standard industry practices for these types of facilities, which often go to the extent of screening incoming and departing workers for currently valid photo ID and checking them and anything they carry with metal detectors and / or hand searches for concealed contraband.
You are correct in stating essentially that dishonest people will behave dishonestly
if they think they can get away with it. That's where the quality of the HR hiring process and security design and operations comes in. When a cargo handler can leave with a box addressed to a gun distributor and large enough to hold 70 or 76 guns, and the first indication of the loss comes from law enforcement investigating illegal sales of the merchandise, there's a serious hole in the facility's security operation that needs to be identified and fixed pronto.
You're also correct that collusion with one or more parties could have been used to defeat security measures that had been put in place, and it is true that any security system can be defeated from the inside with enough sufficiently knowledgeable bad actors working together. That's not the same as saying that there's no point to putting security measures in place. The more parties whose collusion is required for success, the more difficult theft becomes.
Any serious breach needs to be quickly and carefully investigated with appropriate measures taken to make sure that the broken parts of the system get fixed in a hurry and bad actors are removed from the work force. Failure to do so will result in an escalating series of losses, and in the case of lost guns, the ultimate consequences can be far more serious than just the value of the merchandise.
Like airplane crashes, it's also true that an isolated serious incident or two can happen anywhere on a bad day when all existing safeguards fail for one reason or another. A good security operation will take an incident like this and follow every lead (review of videotapes, interviews of everyone on duty in the affected areas, etc.) to learn what really happened and where each failure occurred. They'll then take appropriate action to close the holes and reinforce systems and procedures to make individual safeguards more reliable so that even if some don't work as designed in a worst case scenario, others will hold to prevent a successful repetition of the incident in the future.
Proactive security operations go even further to analyze their own weak points and conduct periodic penetration testing at high value material facilities by having agents attempt to "steal" items to see if their safeguards actually work. They then address any weaknesses found before an actual loss occurs.
Let's hope the company involved in this case doesn't just shrug these thefts off as insured losses, and takes the steps necessary to reestablish a secure environment for their operations.