Chatham House Rule

Chatham House is the location of the Royal Institute for International Affairs based in St James SW1. So what is the Chatham House rule? Firstly many people make the mistake of saying ‘Chatham House Rules’, this is a common misconception because there is actually only one rule which reads as follows:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

The rule is widely used and seems to be mentioned regularly at business meetings, security committees and security conferences in an attempt to aid free discussion. The rule allows attendees to speak as individuals and to encourage free discussion without the concern for their official duties or personnel reputation.

The rule is not a gagging order, as you can chat freely about the meeting afterwards but the amenity of the attendees must stand (e.g.: name and originations), for example a list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.

The success of the rule is really only morally binding and is at best relying upon someone’s integrity and professionalism......and here lies the potential problem!

I recently attended a meeting where the Chatham House Rule was invoked. However, I knew that one person in the room had previous for a lack of confidentiality and integrity and as a result it was impossible for me to speak freely and rely upon this ‘morally binding’ rule, which according to some internet sources the rule is half-jokingly summarised as, "You may be quoted, but you cannot be fired," or the lesser, “what happens on tour, stays on tour”

I know that as a individual both working within business and being a member of various professional bodies, I am governed by lots of different legislation, codes of conducts and ethics. There are also a number of rules that I am bound by as a security professional and by my own personal beliefs and morals. All of which if breached would result in a significant amount of damage both professionally, reputationally and legally.

So why oh why, should I put all my faith in a morally binding (nice to have) rule that is actually only enforceable in Chatham House itself..... because in the absences of knowing any one persons integrity or honesty, I have to rely on this rule. Whether I choose to speak freely will now have to depend on my interpretation of who is around me.

Security is simple......

Sometime ago a colleague and I were discussing the security arrangements for a particular site. We agreed on the asset we were trying to protect but could not agree on the security solutions that had been deployed and this quickly became quite a heated discussion. I believe that security in its purest form is quite simple, yet if this is true why is it one of the most emotive topics for me right up there and alongside with religion, football and now coalition politics.

I suppose the purpose of writing this blog and sharing my experiences, questions and concerns is a way of me trying find out more and attempt to understand what it is about security that makes everyone an expert. I understand that the physical or technical security application to a site, risk or areas is important, but will always strongly maintain that without the right people, processes and procedures it doesn’t matter about the Rolls Royce kit if it’s not being utilised properly.

I was fortunate to present at the recent Counter Terror Expo 2010 on providing assurance to senior management of security risks. Whilst preparing I found myself getting angry at the lack of people in the security world actually talking about this subject and noted that there are lots of ideas, discussions, plans and strategies about what the government do and how parts of the Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) are assisted by that, but the gulf between public and private I think is just too great. What happens to the private company, limited company or the small business that would not have exposure to or have the staff to understand the CONTEST strategy or the HMG Security Policy Framework (which I believe is being widely touted and over used as the way forward) what does it mean to any of them? The same could be said for most other areas of the (and for now I use the words loosely) ‘security world’ as what do they do about countering fraud, personnel security and screening arrangements for the insider threat.

Following my presentation I received feedback from a couple of visitors who said it was interesting and that they hadn’t really given providing assurance much thought, "my Finance Director could understand some of our security risks that way, thanks". Now I am not suggesting it was a pinnacle of my career but I took this feedback as a compliment (don’t get many so I’ll take it) but thought maybe I should open this discussion up to others, maybe I could post some of the questions that I don’t think I could answer without comparing it to religion, football or politics. So here goes…..it’s a simple one really….. Ready….....

What is Security?

I really hope anyone visiting this blog can help me, I am guessing there's no absolute right or wrong answer but any comment will assist in my quest, thanks for reading.