The Conceptual and Scientific Demarcation of Security in Contrast to Safety

Abstract

Increased focus on protection from terrorism, espionage, cybersecurity and other malicious crimes has led to increased academic interest in the topic of security, especially in risk and safety studies. This article aims to investigate the conceptual and scientific demarcation of security in contrast to safety, and discuss the status of security as an independent science. Security is a multifaceted concept and academic definitions often distinguish security from safety in terms of intentionality. However, intentionality also plays a part in safety research thus this is not a sufficient parameter for distinguishing the two fields. The dichotomy of nonmalicious versus malicious is suggested as a means for differentiation. A new definition of security that incorporates elements associated with the current security research field is proposed. Security can be defined as the perceived or actual ability to prepare for, adapt to, withstand, and recover from dangers and crises caused by people's deliberate, intentional, and malicious acts such as terrorism, sabotage, organized crime, or hacking. The conclusion is that before security can be established as an independent discipline, it is necessary to determine what concepts and theories are related to the field, what levels of and objects in society should be included, in addition to the interrelationships and interdependencies with other disciplines.

Safety and Security: The Challenges of Bringing Them Together

“…A central concept for how to achieve both safety and security is risk management (Blokland & Reniers, Bieder & Pettersen Gould, both this volume). However, there is much confusion as to what to expect of risk analysis [18], how it can be carried out, and if it is the same for safety and security [8]. The conceptual differences between safety and security have in many contexts become further extended by science and technology, for example, in airport operations [5,6].…”

Bringing symmetry between and within safety and security cultures in high-risk organizations

“…The second is related to the historically minor demand from hazrdous industries, which for a long time considered the intentional and malicious risk to be relatively small, if not insignificant (Reniers et al, 2011(Reniers et al, , p. 1242. The third is that security was first analyzed through the lens of geopolitics and defense security (Burgess et al, 2018), while organizational security has only recently come into focus (Jore, 2019). This element touches on the perceived confidential character of security, mostly dealt with by homeland and foreign security, with only a few people in charge of maintaining security in organizations (Jore, 2017).…”

Ontological and epistemological challenges of measuring the effectiveness of urban counterterrorism measures

“…Security threats such as terrorism are defined by their deliberate, intentional malicious intent (Jore 2017). Terrorists deliberately use violence or threats of violence to obtain a political goal.…”

“…This tendency to utilize risk-based approaches is mirrored in multiple laws and guidelines published in recent years. The commonality of such approaches is that they view terrorism as a manageable risk and deem it possible to acquire knowledge about the likelihood and the consequences of an attack, as well as to assess the risk-reducing effects of counterterrorism measures (Jore 2017). In Norway, the corollary of risk-based thinking is mirrored in a new National Security Law, in effect from 1 January 2019.…”