"He Is An Idiot!" Exclaims SIA Director John Mack
By John Honovich, Published Mar 23, 2020, 10:16am EDTHere is another inside look into the "leaders" of the security industry. SIA director John Mack of Imperial Capital is angry at IPVM.
Why? We questioned a letter he and SIA are working on.
Related: SIA Director Dismisses Coronavirus, Don't Cancel ISC West and The Cowardly, Greedy "Leaders" of Video Surveillance - SIA
Supporting Security As Essential Service
IPVM supports security professionals being categorized as an essential service in the face of coronavirus. Moreover, common sense supports security professionals in this because security is a fundamental need, virus or not. Indeed, the US government has made it clear that security professionals are considered essential in March 19, 2020 guidance.
Sign The Letter
Despite this, SIA directors like John Mack spent the weekend trying to get signatures for a letter urging the government to do what it has already done. Indeed, I would not have been scolded if I did not ask the obvious question:
What practical risk is that security services are not considered essential services? From everything we have seen, municipalities and the federal government already consider them as such.
Mack acknowledged that this a battle essentially won:
You are right most jurisdictions have considered security essential. That said there are some that haven’t and this is with an abundance of caution that we make this point. Doesn’t the hurt to show strong support in any event.
I then asked Mack and other SIA members:
If there is some clear risk for jurisdictions that would not support security as essential, IPVM would support and speak out.Can you or SIA (cc:ed) or someone clarify what risk jurisdictions are at risk?Otherwise, it seems like you all are trying to take credit for a battle that is already won.
"He Is An Idiot!"
Mack responded inadvertently to me:
IPVM Happy To Help On Real Battles
The "leaders" of the industry would benefit from using IPVM's great reach. And we are happy to help with issues that really need help. If there are specific jurisdictions that somehow do not recognize security professionals as essential services, let us identify them and focus our efforts on those few.
Otherwise, we risk, like SIA, taking credit for a battle already won and then we really would be ... an idiot.
Comments (37)
I agree.
It's an obvious attempt to take credit for something and put their name on it.
you get more accidental replies to emails than anyone i know:
Congressman Visits Hikvision USA, Admits Unaware of "Company's Background" Before Backtracking
Unclear on the concept of “reply all.”
Technically he replied just to me and left off the intended recipients.
I did, in fairness, notify him on the email and my intention to do a post to which he simply replied:
I found a long time ago...never send something negative in e-mail. You will accidentally send it to the wrong party EVERY time. That's just how Karma works.
John mack is just another uneducated Dinosaur, that’s on the board of SIA. Members of SIA should wake up, What is SIA really doing for the industry.
The irony of that email is quite amusing. However, I'm a bit disappointed that this was put on blast as a post. To me, there's no difference in what he did and your response. It would have been just as easy to write about security as an essential service/function and the initial interaction with the SIA, but it seems as though IPVM is just like any other media outlet right now. The post took a turn for the worst IMO and left a bad taste in my mouth...
This is my first comment as I'm generally here to read the content and gather as much info as possible on security news and technology from a unaffiliated third party perspective. I hope the content will reflect that going forward.
#7, thanks for your first comment!
It would have been just as easy to write about security as an essential service/function
We did - US Government Classifies Security Professionals As Essential In Coronavirus - and that was the lead item in our newsletter overnight:
As for:
To me, there's no difference in what he did and your response.
For me, the difference is that I raised a legitimate concern and the SIA director, instead of answering professionally and addressing the matter, decided to call me an idiot.
I think that gives an important inside look into how these people make decisions and why our industry 'leaders' are so unimpactful. Does that make sense? I am not offended if you disagree, thanks again for the feedback!
In my opinion (this seems to be an opinion thread), SIA is advocating for the Security Industry and have provided resources to help their members stay informed and productive while much of the world is locking down. It seems this story is more about the fact that you were accidentally copied on an email that was insulting to you, than the fact that SIA is continuing to advocate for the security industry. Why put quotation marks around "leaders" unless you are intimating that the persons in question are not actually leaders? Why do you think the battle is already won when some of the largest manufacturers in the industry don't understand what the letter from CISA means to them while under state mandated lockdown? Security is one small bullet point listed under "Other community-based government operations and essential functions" on the second to last page of the CISA Guidance doc, so it would seem to me to be better for the industry if more was done to advocate for us. This is all still new territory for everyone, and it would be more tolerable if there was more unity and promotion of the industry.
Here we go again. Yet another embarrassing rant. IPVM should seriously consider the degree to which the negative feedback it gets might be true. "Idiot" is of course hyperbole, but it does not seem very smart and certainly not very professional for the same person to allow himself over and over to initiate or get drawn into these painful and generally useless inflammatory discussions that detract from the main business of the organization. I'll bet the rest of the hardworking staff at IPVM cringe every time one of these issues comes up. Too many of the IPVM newsletters include confrontational and overly critical language apparently aimed at stirring up controversy.
This latest rant features an unflattering photo of the current target, and a cute little emoji is added — I guess to suggest that the person is a drooling stroke victim with a disconjugate gaze. Perhaps professional behavior is too lofty a goal for IPVM; maybe it should just shoot for adult behavior.
On the other hand I was very pleased to achieve a certification from IPVM this last year after completing the IP Networking course run by John Scanlon who with his pleasant sensible relaxed manner was the epitome of competence and professionalism throughout the course. The disconnect between that terrific experience with the networking course and then these unpleasant newsletters is hard to understand. I don’t say much in IPVM discussions since I’m just an interested end user recently retired at 66 from an unrelated field. Still, it seems worth stating the observation of an outsider, for what it’s worth: I suspect that these inflammatory discussions repeatedly deal significant blows to IPVM's general credibility and perhaps to its longevity.
This latest rant features an unflattering photo of the current target, and a cute little emoji is added — I guess to suggest that the person is a drooling stroke victim with a disconjugate gaze.
fwiw, the emoji with the "disconjugate gaze" represents J.H., not J.M., as described by Mr. Mack, via a hypothetical and illustrative speech balloon.
also, not being an expert on John Mack's photogenicity, i can't say for sure how "unflattering" the photo is. what part is unflattering?
finally, i find it confusing that you dismiss the "idiot" statement as "of course hyperbole", while embellishing and articulating the elements of the emoji, "disconjugate gaze", "drooling stroke victim". why is that not hyperbole as well?
“Unflattering” only to the extent that J.M. was not given the opportunity look at the camera and try to look his best — and of course also due to the fact that he appears to be interacting with a brain-dead blue emoji.
interacting with a brain-dead blue emoji.
In fairness, the brain-dead blue emoji is a representation of me, e.g., Google image results for 'idiot icon':
“Unflattering” only to the extent that J.M. was not given the opportunity look at the camera and try to look his best
i prefer a candid shot over a yearbook photo any day.
also, and IMHO, Mr. Mack strikes quite the dashing figure, with the glint-in-his-eye and his devil-may-care attitude and bigger-than-life presence, almost like a movie tv star.
In my opinion, disrupters are needed to balance the world. This applies to any instance where the political culture allows those with money, power or influence to control a narrative.
We are seeing this in politics today. Whether it's a politician, a journalist, or the average citizen, the internet has given disrupters power they've never had before. Often times, the disrupter is a certain style of journalism, like John's.
One thing is sure, if your taking flak, you know you're over the target. In this case, "He's an idiot" is the flak.
IPVM is subscription based. You either know what you're getting when you subscribe OR if it's not what you expect, you can simply cancel your subscription.
My guess is, you'll still be around.
This is an interesting conversation and I would say that it is certainly a commercial decision that John and IPVM can make. I know a large group of industry professionals that refer to IPVM as "satire" because of some of the way that news and in some cases, opinion, is delivered here. In other cases, I am sure that IPVM captures more revenue and subscriptions by having "sensationalized" articles. It likely goes both ways.
Not trying to offend anyone and I don't particularly have an opinion on the matter; just an interesting topic that I do see individuals react to both sides.
I know a large group of industry professionals that refer to IPVM as "satire"
Sure, I know a lot of our "leaders" like to dismiss it as a blog, e.g., as well. However, we do more research and investigations in a month than groups like SIA have done in years.
The reality, for most, is that they are upset that they are publicly called out and recognize accurately that if it was for not us, no one with reach would criticize them.
I am sure that IPVM captures more revenue and subscriptions by having "sensationalized" articles.
That gets trouted out from time to time but think about - I just criticized the industry's most well-known investment banker. I regularly criticize the largest manufacturers in the world (e.g., your best friend Axis). How possibly could I make anywhere the amount of money from that versus how much I lose from offending such big players?
Certainly, people disagree with IPVM but it's not a very coherent thought that this is done as a profit optimization strategy. I do this because I believe in it, even though surely we would make more profit by cozying up to these people. Agree/disagree?
I don't disagree on the amount of work and research put in. I am a happy member here for a reason :-)
It's funny that you mention Axis, which I guess is a fair assumption with me but those comments weren't at all directed in that manner. From my interactions, they all know better than to mention IPVM at all. Outside of Axis, other SIA members are much more open to commenting.
In regard to profit optimization strategy; I wouldn't have enough journalism/publication/marketing experience to comment on whether being cozy with those organizations or staying neutral and charging for memberships would make more profit. I appreciate you sharing your experience and expertise that you would expect more profit out of taking the ads than being able to take the neutral approach. I'm sure a good portion of your success has come from being transparent and I appreciate that. However, you are correct; it is natural for me as a business leader to assume that you take whatever commercial means gain the most revenue for you and your organization. Seems that is not the case and I would say kudos for staying passionate about what you do and not compromising that for capital gains :-)
I was with you until you used "sensationalized" in your reply.
Sensationalism is typically associated with inaccurate journalism.
I won't disagree that others may make that association but that was not at all my intent. I would say - IPVM's goal should be to strongly highlight stuff that has high click-rates. Maybe sensationalism wasn't the proper term if that is the knee-jerk association.
IPVM's goal should be to strongly highlight stuff that has high click-rates
Just to clarify, high click-rates is one element of many. If no one wants to read something, it probably does not make sense for us to publish it. But all 'clicks' are not the same. I want clicks that have an impact. For example here, the point as said upfront, is to show how the old guard thinks and acts. In the Athena post, it is to expose troubling business practices. In our shootouts, it's to give clarity about what really does work the best.
That's fair. I am a member for shootouts first and foremost, but I won't lie and pretend that some of the juicy headlines don't get me clicking in a hurry. I also find great intrigue on the business strategy side and that you are willing to share motivations for how you operate. I can get that kind of value out of closed-door conversations with other business leaders but it isn't all that often that it is out on a public forum.
IPVMU Certified | 04/24/20 06:43pm
Amazing. lol
