Loading 
Bonanza Offer FLAT 20% off & $20 sign up bonus Order Now
SCY1103
AU
Edith Cowan University
The purpose of this report is to analyze the Case of the Dresden Green Vault Museum Heist and identify where the security system failed to protect the valuable jewels worth billion dollars. The paper will evaluate the theft event and identify the potential risk factor that made the museum vulnerable to burglary. Systematic analysis of the physical security threats to the Museum is identified using the System approach and various qualitative and quantitative methods are identified to analyze the same. Various security interference are analyzed using the System theory in general and theory of defense-in depth (DID) and Routine Activity theory in particular. The potential threats to the security were identified in Security Interference phase which is analyzed through understanding the concept of DID and Routine activity theory and by applying professional Opinion on the same.
News Websites:
Security is a comprehensive subject; it is meant to protect against any danger or threat. Physical security protects against harm to a physical asset, property, and people. The protection against vulnerabilities is provided for effective functioning of the individual, business, or any other properties day to day operation.[1] The system approach to physical security is identified as a comprehensive security plan to protect from theft by security diagnosis using risk assessment tools, security inference using system theory such as defense in depth and security treatment by changes in system modeling (EASI) and security design.[2] In this report the security inference is studied to analyses the museum theft using the defense in depth and routine activity theory.
The Dresden Green Vault heist happened in the early hours of 25 November 2019. The Burglars initiated a fire near the museum which cut the power supply of the museum.[3] Thus the street lights and the alarm systems cease to function. The stolen jewel included a diamond-studded sword, cufflinks, necklace, and others worth $1.2 billion. Two burglars intruded the security and fled in a car before the police arrived. Four security guards were investigated for their alleged role in the heist. The suspects for the heist were arrested but the stolen artifacts were still searched by the investigators. This raises the question of the efficiency of the security management authorities. It was evident from the process how well planned the theft was as the power supply station was set on fire so that security alarms functioning were disabled (Benson, 2013).[4] The metal grate and the glass displays were easily penetrated by the burglars. Only two burglars were visible in the cameras however it the investigators assumed that there were several perpetrators involved.
There has been a phenomenal increase in museum thefts in the recent past. One such museum theft was the Jewel heist at the American Museum of Natural History in 1964. It was discovered that robbery was effortless due to the inefficient security measures, as the jewel room windows were open, burglar alarms were not functioning. [5]Additionally, the museum robbery at Gardner museum in March 1990, which showed how the burglar dressed as police tied up the security guard and walked away with art worth $500 million. Last but not the least, was the theft of the renowned artwork of Leonardo the Vinci that is ‘Mona Lisa’ from the Louvre museum is one example showing the inefficiency of the security system in protecting the precious historical assets. The efficiency of the so-called world-class security system has only been evident after the theft had occurred, These events show the exposure of exotic art to criminal risk due to underperforming security functioning.[6] The following sections discuss the security theories and principles.Relevant Literature: Security theories and Principles
The physical security of the museum failed because the protection plan did not comply with the physical protection theory of Defense-in-depth (DiD) that identifies that the major risk was in the security interference phase. Theoretical understanding of the Defense-in-depth (DiD) and Routine Activity Theory will let us analyses why the Physical Protection System (PPS) Failed.
The defense-in-depth theory determines the approach to security systems using the System approach in the physical protection system (PPS). As the system approach implies confronting the problem as a whole. The elements to protect the physical premise as per the theory of defense are deterred, defend, delay and respond. From the lens of the theory of defense-in-depth, the security plan was vulnerable in protecting the physical asset.[7] The theory implies a holistic approach to provide security by integrating technology, people, and procedure. It provides layers of security to defend against a security breach. For Instance, to build intruder resistance the security door evaluated at the micro-level will cover building the strength of the door by the quality of material and fittings used to make it and it will be improved to promote an additional layer of security. [8]In addition, the sensor technology can be used to detect the intrusion by functioning security alarms.
There are different layers of defense that can be used as protective layers of defense. The outermost layer of security starts with delaying and denying the theft using the barriers such as fences and walls. Lightning should be provided to create a psychological barrier, and detection can be made easy if lightning is sufficient.[9] The second layer of defense that protects at the level of the physical building at both interior and exterior level is durable security at the level of doors, windows glass, roofs, and advanced technology use such as the internet of things. The third layer of defense included setting a mechanism for protection through the installation of automated doors and windows (Liu & Wang, 2019). [10]The fourth level and final level of defense are associated with the protection of the most precious asset through Vaults this is the most protected layer that can withstand fire and heavyweights. It argues that to restrict intrusion of unauthorized access, the protected assets should be encompassed with successive barriers so that appropriate time to respond and recover is achieved.
The Routine Activity theory defines three factors that are responsible for crime occurrence, which are the absence of a competent guardian, availability of suitable target, and potential offender. Synchronization among all three actors led to the realization of criminal activity. But there is also an underlying assumption that identifies the criminal as a rational decision-maker. Having the place managers can also discourage criminal activity just by their presence.[11]Every museum has its security needs no single plan can be considered ideal. The application of the pre-existing security tools can also protect the museum if security measures are implemented adequately. Technology plays a vital role in setting the benchmark and monitoring the progress against such threats. Insiders are the first suspect to investigate the theft monitoring them is foremost to resolve the issue. In maintaining security the role of the human factor that is security guards is most influential. The discipline and motivation of the security guard in preserving the precious antique guides is vital.[12]
Art crime scholars Katharine, David, Ryan identified that the lack of association in guardianship measures led to the art vandalism. The routine activity theory (RAT) is used by them to justify the importance of routine checks of security measures so that the social and physical security measures are implemented and reduce the risk of art vandalism. RAT involves guardianship as a key concept in providing the protection and prevention technique. [13]Another statement argued by the authors regarding security is that it must be designed in inclusive terms all aspects must be interconnected and linked to one another. The security system must be operated and crafted as a system. The defense-in-depth (DID) theory provides an effective system of developing the security plan. The unlawful actions can be effectively controlled by applying the core elements of the theory to using the system approach.As per the Experts the major element that leads to the burglary was in the system interference.[14]
The understanding of the defense in depth let us identify the potential factors that lead to the occurrence of theft. The elements to protect the physical premise as per the theory of defense were deterring, defending, delaying and responding. From the lens of the theory of defense-in-depth, the security plan of Dresden Museum was vulnerable in protecting the physical asset. The protection system of the Museum was vulnerable to theft, as the common principles of physical security were not adhered to by the authorities. [15]
Physical security is the first layer of defense in protection. The principles if followed provide a layer of defense from potential threats by detecting, delaying, deterring, covering, and responding to the intruder activity. The security system at the museum failed in deterring the intrusion . [16]For instance, the barriers were insufficient to protect the museum, the fences, lack of security personnel were some of the perceived barriers. In addition, the measures to detect unauthorized activity were inappropriate. The museum security was so inefficient that the power supply cut damaged the burglar alarm; the security guards were not active enough to catch the thief. The guards and the security system failed to slow down the event of fleeing after the burglary.[17] The barriers were not enough to distract or delay the intruders. The response after the burglary was also delayed; the police came after more than five minutes after fleeing the intruders. Thus there were many loopholes in the security system that did not restrict criminal intrusion and burglary happened.
The major drawback was also identified in the physical security as per Crime Prevention Theory. As per the Routine Activity theory, the drawbacks in the security checks were also identified as the theory defines three factors that are responsible for crime occurrence, which are the absence of a competent guardian, availability of suitable target, and potential offender. Synchronization among all three actors led to the realization of criminal activity[18]But there is also an underlying assumption that identifies the criminal as a rational decision-maker. In the museum theft, the inability of guards in protecting from the theft is evident. Physical guardianship includes elements that can make the target of burglars unachievable such as locks, special lightning, proper functioning alarms, power back up, and others. Having the place managers can also discourage criminal activity just by their presence. At the time of museum theft, the secondary place managers were not present in the place that has also barred the thieves from conducting the crime. In managing the art museum and galleries the guardian role is most important, the determination of the burglar can be contained if the proper physical and social guardianship measures were put in place. [19]
The group of motivated individuals managed to pull off the theft despite the security measures taken into account. Museums are treasure houses and to preserve and showcase the culture, heritage, and iconography of the features prevent in that region. This possessed a great risk of security to the other museum security as well because having the physical protection system did not protect against the crime. Major risks to the museum security were identified in the Security Interference Phase.
The DID and Routine activity theory identified that the museum was vulnerable to theft due to delay and deterrence by museum security and the inefficiency of the routine checkup to protect against the harm of theft. The physical security assessment and routine on regular basis may have protected the jewels. The authorities responsible for the management of museum security ignore the precautionary measures and do not follow up on updating the security measures regularly. The architecture and design of the building as per security standards can be made it tough for intruders to gain access to the building. The failure of the engineering infrastructure across the museum was the reason for the loss of precious articles. The integrated museum security system that enables multiple levels of security on the museum artifacts is the need of the hour.
BBC. (2019, Nov). Dresden Green Vault robbery: Priceless diamonds stolen. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50545003
Benson, M. (2013, september). Overview of Physical Protection. Retrieved from Osti.gov: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1115144
Cakija , D., & Cakija, D. (2019). Optimizing physical protection system using domain experienced exploration method. Journal for Control, Measurement, Electronics, Computing and Communications, 61, 207-218.
Cassar, M. (2013). Cassar, M. (2013). Environmental management: guidelines for museums and galleries. Routledge.
Cepin, M. (2017). Safety and Reliability. Theory and Applications. Hoboken: Wiley.
Coole, M., Corkill, J., & Woodwrad, A. (2012). Defence in Depth, Protection in Depth and. Retrieved from Core.ac.uk: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/41532334.pdf
Liu, Z., & Mao, y. (2020). Effectiveness assessment of improvement measures in physical protection system monitoring center. Kerntechnik.
Liu, Z., & Wang, M. (2019). Study on the Anti-Theft Technology of Museum Cultural Relics Based on Internet of Things. IEEE Access, 7, 1-1.
Malli, M., & Paul, J. (2020). Cyber-physical systems security: Limitations, issues and future trends. Microprocess microsyst, 77.
Nasr, K. (2015). The Museum Heist: A Tale of Art and Obsession. US: Curiosity Books.
Rossmo, K. & Summers, L., 2015. Routine Activity Theory in Crime Investigation. The Criminal Act, pp. 19-32.
Salomon, K., & Roelfs, D. (2018). Art Vandalism and Guardianship in US Art Institutions. Arts, 7(3).
Seungmug, L. (2020). A Basic Principle of Physical Security and Its Link to Cybersecurity. International journal of Cyber Criminology, 14(1), 203-219.
Smith, D. (2013). Security Science: The Theory and Practice of Security. Elsevier.
Svendsen, A. (2015). Advancing “Defence-in-depth”: intelligence and systems dynamics. Defence and security Analysis, 31, 58-73.
The Cambridge University Press. (2013, June). Reevaluating Art Crime's Famous Figures. Retrieved from Cambridge: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-cultural-property/article/reevaluating-art-crimes-famous-figures/E540523482FEDF8480939D1973184980
The Guardian. (2020, March 9). Dresden palace guards investigated over alleged role in heist. Retrieved from The guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/dresden-palace-guards-investigated-alleged-role-heist
Yin, k. (2018). A Study on Effectiveness Evaluation for the Physical Protection System of a High Security Prison Based on the Cloud Model. Security and communication network.
[1] Smith, D. (2013). Security Science: The Theory and Practice of Security. Elsevier.
[2]Benson, M. (2013, september). Overview of Physical Protection. Retrieved from Osti.gov: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1115144
[3] DW. (2021, September 2). Dresden Green Vault jewel heist: Prosecutors charge 6 men. Retrieved from DW: https://www.dw.com/en/dresden-green-vault-jewel-heist-prosecutors-charge-6-men/a-59061352
[4] Benson, M. (2013, september). Overview of Physical Protection. Retrieved from Osti.gov: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1115144
5BBC. (2019, Nov). Dresden Green Vault robbery: Priceless diamonds stolen. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50545003
[6] The Cambridge University Press. (2013, June). Reevaluating Art Crime's Famous Figures. Retrieved from Cambridge: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-cultural-property/article/reevaluating-art-crimes-famous-figures/E540523482FEDF8480939D1973184980
[7] Coole, M., Corkill, J., & Woodwrad, A. (2012). Defence in Depth, Protection in Depth and. Retrieved from Core.ac.uk: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/41532334.pdf
[8] Cakija , D., & Cakija, D. (2019). Optimizing physical protection system using domain experienced exploration method. Journal for Control, Measurement, Electronics, Computing and Communications, 61, 207-218.
[9] Cassar, M. (2013). Cassar, M. (2013). Environmental management: guidelines for museums and galleries. Routledge.
[10] Liu, Z., & Wang, M. (2019). Study on the Anti-Theft Technology of Museum Cultural Relics Based on Internet of Things. IEEE Access, 7, 1-1.
[11] Rossmo, K. & Summers, L., 2015. Routine Activity Theory in Crime Investigation. The Criminal Act, pp. 19-32.
[12] Rossmo, K. & Summers, L., 2015. Routine Activity Theory in Crime Investigation. The Criminal Act, pp. 19-32.
[13] Salomon, K., & Roelfs, D. (2018). Art Vandalism and Guardianship in US Art Institutions. Arts, 7(3).
[14] Salomon, K., & Roelfs, D. (2018). Art Vandalism and Guardianship in US Art Institutions. Arts, 7(3).
[15] Svendsen, A. (2015). Advancing “Defence-in-depth”: intelligence and systems dynamics. Defence and security Analysis, 31, 58-73.
[16] Cepin, M. (2017). Safety and Reliability. Theory and Applications. Hoboken: Wiley.
[17] Liu, Z., & Wang, M. (2019). Study on the Anti-Theft Technology of Museum Cultural Relics Based on Internet of Things. IEEE Access, 7, 1-1.
[18] Svendsen, A. (2015). Advancing “Defence-in-depth”: intelligence and systems dynamics. Defence and security Analysis, 31, 58-73.
[19] Nasr, K. (2015). The Museum Heist: A Tale of Art and Obsession. US: Curiosity Books.
Are you seeking reliable essay help from academic experts in the UK? At Myassignmenthelp.co.uk, we have searched high and low to recruit the top paper writers in the UK who can provide you with the best assignment help. Most of these professionals have completed their PhDs from top universities in the UK. Therefore, they’re the best at resolving every "Who can do my assignment for me?" query.
These professionals undergo intense training to provide coursework help services within strict deadlines. Hence, you don’t have to waste precious seconds wondering, “Can your experts write my assignment within the deadline?" Instead, rest assured that our experts will consistently deliver top-quality work within the due date.
Upload your Assignment and improve Your Grade
Boost Grades
