Protecting Proprietary Security Installations from Regulatory Exposure

Security and surveillance contractors, particularly those working with Ultra-High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWI) and proprietary installations, face a critical vulnerability—not from the systems they install but from the regulatory requirements that expose their work to third parties. State-mandated inspections, plan reviews, and permit filings bring in non-experts, such as electrical inspectors, who specialize in wiring safety but lack expertise in security and defense against criminals.

These inspectors, despite their professional intent, can inadvertently become the weakest link in maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary security systems. They are exposed to the intricate details of these installations but have no obligation, training, or vested interest in maintaining the secrecy of such systems. Consequently, they may unintentionally disclose critical security information to other contractors, electricians, or even homeowners through casual conversations, professional curiosity, or an attempt to discuss "tough security" as a challenge.

This creates a significant risk: a properly designed and installed security system can be compromised before it is even operational due to the very regulations designed to ensure its safety. As security professionals, our job is to eliminate these weak links to provide the highest level of protection for our clients and their assets.

Regulatory Requirements and Points of Exposure

Several state laws require documentation, inspections, and filings that directly contribute to this exposure:

Electrical Work Permits & Inspections (RCW 19.28.101)

• Any electrical installation, including security system wiring, trenching, and overhead cabling, requires permits and inspections.
• Inspectors review for NEC and state code compliance but inadvertently gain access to proprietary security layouts.

Plan Reviews for Certain Installations

• Projects in institutions, educational facilities, and commercial spaces often require plan submissions for approval.
• Once filed, these plans may become public records, accessible through disclosure requests.

Public Records Laws (RCW 42.56 – Washington Public Records Act)

• Many documents filed with state agencies become publicly accessible unless specific exemptions are invoked.
• If security contractors fail to mark proprietary information as confidential, these records can be accessed by competitors or bad actors. If you do not make the claim for confidentiality then it is public, be very aware of your responsibility on this matter.

Fire Alarm & Life Safety System Approvals

• Fire alarm systems, which often integrate with security systems, require plan approvals and inspections. NICET requirements usually limits inspectors exposure meaning tight knit community also means more internal discussion and chances of release of proprietary information to "friends" of the inspector whom they favor.
• The interconnected nature of modern security and life-safety systems means an inspector may gain insights into security loopholes.

How This Exposure Becomes a Security Risk

Human Factor: Inspectors as an Information Leak

• Inspectors are not bound by non-disclosure agreements.
• They may discuss "interesting" aspects of installations with other contractors or in professional circles.
• Some may unintentionally challenge others to “beat the system” without realizing the implications.
• Inspectors retire, quit or sometimes get fired and may are laid off. When this happens to inspectors all bets are off realistically and they become an open fountain to whomever and finding out where the information got leaked is just as difficult and unlikely to discover while you will be defending yourself in court.

Public Records Requests as a Tool for Criminals

• Criminals or competitors can legally request permit records, plans, and inspection results.
• If proprietary information is not explicitly marked as confidential, it is easily accessible.

Cross-Contractor Exposure

• Multiple trades work on high-end installations, and information can spread informally through job-site conversations.
• If inspectors, subcontractors, or other workers discuss security features, vulnerabilities can become widely known.

Strategies to Protect Proprietary Security Information

To mitigate these risks while remaining compliant with state laws, contractors and security providers must implement strategic protections:

Classify and Label Proprietary Information

• Clearly designate any submitted plans, documents, or permits as “CONFIDENTIAL – EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER RCW 39.10.470.”
• Justify confidentiality based on security risks to prevent public access.

Use Limited and Abstracted Documentation

• Avoid excessive detail in plan submissions. Use generic labeling where possible (e.g., "low-voltage wiring" instead of "surveillance data transmission line").
• Submit only the minimum required information to satisfy regulatory requirements.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for Inspectors & Contractors

• Require inspectors, subcontractors, and other involved parties to sign NDAs before reviewing proprietary installations.
• While the state cannot be forced to sign an NDA, contractors and subcontractors can be held accountable.

Challenge Public Records Disclosures

• If a request for security-related records is made, contractors should cite RCW 42.56.420, which protects certain security-related information from public release.
• Legal counsel should be engaged immediately to challenge disclosures

Strategic Legal Contracts for Client Defense

• Contracts with clients should specify that any exposure of proprietary security information due to state-mandated reviews is an external risk.
• Liability should be shifted appropriately, ensuring that the state, not the contractor, bears responsibility for any security breaches resulting from information leaks.

Guidelines for Contractor Conduct During Inspections

During inspections, it is essential for contractors to avoid discussing certain aspects of their work:

Electrical Inspectors' Primary Duties:

• Code Compliance
• Safety Verification
• Plan Review
• Reporting

What Contractors Should Avoid Discussing:

• System Functionality
• Proprietary Technologies
• Security Protocols
• Client Information

By keeping conversations strictly limited to code compliance and safety, contractors can ensure confidentiality.

Conclusion: Proactive Security in Regulatory Compliance

The necessity of regulatory compliance in security and surveillance installations creates a significant vulnerability: exposure of proprietary information through non-expert inspections, plan submissions, and public records. Electrical inspectors, though skilled in wiring safety, are not trained in security protocols and may inadvertently disseminate sensitive information.

By proactively marking confidential information, implementing NDAs, limiting exposure in documentation, and strategically structuring legal contracts, security contractors can mitigate these risks. Furthermore, by leveraging legal exemptions and contractual protections, they can redirect liability away from themselves and onto the state when regulatory disclosure compromises security. Additionally, contractors must be highly mindful of their interactions with inspectors, ensuring discussions remain strictly within the scope of compliance and safety without revealing any proprietary details.

Ultimately, true security extends beyond the physical system—it requires closing every weak link, including those imposed by regulatory frameworks and human interaction during inspections.

www.caseyarcade.com