Security Management is described as essential part of the business operations in big companies as well as medium size enterprises today. Needless to say that success of business depends highly on many aspects of company's procedures and policies in security segment, but such segment has to be greatly supported by the company's executives. The articles claims that the key to effective security functioning is in advocacy that has to be sought in those who make final decisions especially in terms of financial assistance. Evidently such approach to this problem is a wise one as it sets a right start for the implementation of security system as a whole in the company. People who understand and approve of such projects are essential for security managers not only as someone who signs budgetary papers but also who comprehend why and how security is a business oriented notion today and thus serves as protector of its physical assets as well as intellectual property such as data storage.

Statements derived from Looping Asset Protection Model assume that the entire security system is a set of interconnected processes each of which is important for the creation of effective structure for protecting company's work force and other assets. Clearly such approach yields a systematic and accurate coordination of security within the company; it unites both proactive and reactive applications in order to provide an effective support for businesses. Implementing all four stages in managing security would result in timely changes that need to be done and thus in a better surveillance of those assets that are guarded. Not only systematic analysis of security models is required for security issues handling but also clear detection of power that controls it; executive managers and those who are in charge. Support and understanding of those who help security managers to do their work is what benefits the whole organization in case of mutual trust and advocacy. Article emphasizes the importance of such cooperation and logically thinking it does play a huge role because without understanding of what the company at all levels needs and without support of those needs, security management on its own can hardly do any good. Such situation can result in unnecessary spending of funds and ineffective systems that will harm instead of protect organization's assets, thus the articles gives truly important advice and view of problems that can occur if managed independently from other company's departments.

While analyzing the article by Kimberly S. Keller one can notice that no facts or testimonies can guarantee a just solution in the case in which security specialists are involved. The article talks about notions of ‘Daubert challenge' and Rule 702 that are called to determine which testimonies and opinions are important for certain cases and which can be neglected. As a whole this work is aimed at showing what possible challenges can be posed by the judge and modern jurisprudence in cases that depend greatly on the security experts. Taking into consideration the content of the text it becomes clear that it doesn't offer any solutions for those hoping to win a case in trial but rather gives description possible outcomes in accordance with Daubert case and Kumho. Both these cases take different stands on what is required for the case to be won and jury to be satisfied by proof, thus one can see that every individual case in reality assumes different approaches and obliges those involved to look for evidence specifically related to their case. No two cases are the same therefore Rule 702 and the two named instances are only examples of how the court could behave but gives no direction in which to go for a positive and fair outcome.

Although there is no suggestion of what is a right thing to do, the author states that security expert is responsible for making his testimony and expertise coincide with the one held by the judge as he is a "gatekeeper" and secondly translate his scientific approach into language understood by jurors. Consequently the articles implies that there are no laws that precisely specify which evidence is enough and which is not necessary for the case to be resolved in a adequate manner but rather it proves that fact that those who are manage to play as ‘Daubert challengers' and Kuhmo supporters at the same time can count on successful results. It seems that initially the law makers were unable to identify what facts and expertise are needed for a fair representation of the case that's why those two cases provided a different and still far from perfect approach to deciding such matters. Although the Rule 702 is generally viewed as a correct measure, when a single judge makes conclusions as to expert's qualifications, reliability and relevance of the facts to the case its ultimate goal becomes questionable for the reason of a restricted frame of reference of judges who are not experts in certain fields.

Not only cases that involve security expert's participation can be of confusing character. Practice shows that our age of technology and speedy communication leads to new and sophisticated crimes such as fraud, tax evasion or money laundering. The article provides an overview of these crimes however it does not consider the possible causes of them. The list of crimes implies that financial crimes have taken different faces and people who commit them are willing to take risk because disclosure of their felony requires scrutinizing investigation. Evidently not all such crimes are revealed as many other ones, but this fact means that people are getting more and more professional in breaking the law and getting away with money on their bank accounts.

Taking into account the complexity of financial investigations and responsibilities of those who conduct them it becomes clear that the number of criminals greatly exceeds investigators who are able to expose them. Besides the environment in which the crimes are committed is constantly changing and requires innovative approaches to investigating felonies related to financial operations. The article is basically stating that numerous fiscal crimes are hard to trace and even harder to prove connection between financial transactions and for instance purchasing of assets. Obviously finding proof is not that easy and can take lots of time moreover financial crimes that do not involve big sums of money are not likely to be noticed by such agencies as IRS. On the other hand such crimes taken together accumulate huge amounts of money and influence the system more than separate cases. This leads to conclusion that IRS has to have a better developed procedure of tax collection and the like, in such a way people will consider passing the lawful line twice and might rethink their decision. The article did not provide a positive feeling of safety from such frauds stressing that special agencies work harder than ever which means that they have more work than ever before.

The article "Three Centuries of Criminal Justice Privatization in the United States" depicts a history of judicial system and police emergence in America starting from the times of first settlements in the New World. It provides an overview of subsequent steps that were taken by the government and private community sector in forming what is now known as police and courts. It has a logical structure of presenting the facts and explaining how and why the criminal justice system and its supporting branches have changed into what we have now. Taking for instance Police as an organ providing safety for citizens was developing from forced volunteerism that was not sponsored by the government and thus private households had to pay them in order to be protected. This fact is of great importance for understanding the initial desire of people to be protected by someone because it is people's deepest psychological need. Former Police was not very effective for the reason of unsystematic approach to crime reduction and prevention, and thus it needed more funding than was possible to receive from a private sector.

This article also discusses the courts and correctional facilities in the light of their historical roots in the private sector. It shows that all spheres of life that are now almost completely managed by government have developed from services once conducted by public according with its interests and desires, although not totally uncontrolled. Consequently, as is said in the paper, the history is returning to its origins and currently more and more private prisons and for-profit security guard businesses are emerging. This situation could be explained from the materialistic point of view. People who are able and ready to pay for services will receive high quality assistance in areas they need them. For instance if two parties are able to pay the court for reviewing their case without having to wait for a long time as in public courts, they will be granted decision in much shorter period of time by qualified judges who are licensed by the government. People are willing to pay money to feel more important and more secure, when they are using private security guard services. Current reality speaks for itself: those who want to be treated with more respect and attention will pay, either in prison to receive better food or in courts to avoid waiting long months. It seems that government has taken a wise side by allowing private businesses conduct duties that were formerly held by its own forces. At the same time it applies regulations that are considered by both governmental and non-governmental agencies in order to be guided by the same rules but have freedom to operate in their own ways.