My Experience Working in Unarmed Security in Italy
When I worked as part of an unarmed security and surveillance team in Italy, the reality of the job was very different from how it was presented.
Because of over-regulation and shrinking budgets — largely driven by price competition linked to the Palto system — we were expected to carry out our duties with equipment that was simply not fit for purpose.
Equipment That Didn’t Protect Us
We were issued torches that often came without working batteries or had very limited range.
In real situations, this mattered.
A torch was one of the few tools we had in a threatening encounter. But the ones we received were:
- Not strong enough to disorient someone acting aggressively
- Too light and fragile to be used defensively in an emergency
If someone had pulled a knife, we would have had nothing between ourselves and them.
Uniforms That Worked Against Us
Our clothing didn’t protect us from the weather, and it certainly didn’t protect us from physical risk.
Most of the time:
- The uniforms didn’t fit properly
- The materials were thin and failed to retain warmth
- We were exposed to the elements for long patrol shifts
Raincoats were too short to properly cover the body and didn’t allow layering. If we tried to wear warmer clothing underneath, they simply didn’t fit.
The boots were one of the biggest problems.
We were issued cheap patrol footwear that caused:
- Severe blisters
- Long-term foot strain
- Calcium buildup in the bones from constant walking
- Loss of toenails
Personally, after long patrol periods in these boots, I developed calcium buildup in my feet and lost toenails as a direct result.
This wasn’t discomfort — it was physical damage from doing the job.
Communication Systems That Failed When Needed
Our radios were touchscreen-based and relied on Android software.
In theory, they were modern. In practice, they failed.
We regularly experienced:
- Scrambled or completely silent audio
- Touchscreens that stopped responding in rain or cold
- Software crashes
- Incoming spam calls interfering with communications
On top of this, the headsets we were given broke constantly, leaving us struggling to hear instructions during shifts.
We were unarmed. Communication, visibility, and physical readiness were supposed to be our safeguards.
But when the equipment failed, the clothing caused harm, and the tools didn’t work in real conditions, we were left exposed — carrying out a job that involved real risk without the basic means to protect ourselves
Inadequate Surveillance Software
The problems weren’t limited to physical equipment — the digital systems we were required to use were just as concerning.
At the time, we were operating surveillance and reporting systems on an outdated and discontinued Windows 10 environment. This created not only operational instability but also serious security and privacy concerns due to Microsoft AI monitoring on their platforms on both windows 10 & 11 , holding many patents in the field of surveillance of the individual , which we all agree to every time we install windows anc click the terms of use checkbox. This is why The Communist Party of China has been moving to build their own operating system based on Linux & still uses Windows XP modified & cracked for government work as it is not connected to the cloud.
From my perspective — particularly given my background in software engineering — this was alarming.
Using an unsupported platform meant:
- Increased vulnerability to security breaches
- Exposure of sensitive operational data
- Potential non-compliance with EU privacy standards
Additionally, Microsoft-based environments relied heavily on integrated cloud services that monitored usage activity through AI -As ChatGPT itself powers MS Copilot and runs on MS Server Farms. This raised serious concerns about how surveillance data — including incident reports and observations involving members of the public — could potentially be processed or tracked outside of our direct control. The USA uses ChatGPT & other AI’s to spy on you when you dialogue with them…AI integration into surveillance software gives the USA direct access to your companies internal workings
When I raised these concerns with management, I was told that this was “not my role” and was instructed not to pursue the issue further.
I was also made aware that discussion of these risks with mall management was not permitted and I was to get back inline & do my job.
This was particularly troubling because it created a conflict between operational practice and Italian privacy expectations — especially given that vigilance work is a state-regulated profession where responsibility extends beyond simply following orders.
I had offered to develop alternative internal tools — including secure, cloud-based systems — that could have:
- Reduced reliance on paper-based administration
- Digitised incident reporting
- Automated routine documentation
- Reduced manual workload in the office
At the time, much of the administrative process was still handled either on paper or through basic word processors — even where structured digital capture could have been implemented safely and efficiently.
My proposal was declined.
I was reminded that my responsibility was to follow instructions, not to redesign systems — despite the fact that cyber-awareness and operational security formed part of the broader professional framework of regulated vigilance work.
In practice, this meant that known risks were left unaddressed, and opportunities to improve both efficiency and data protection were dismissed.
A Paranoid, Military-Style Management Culture
The management style I experienced was rigid, punitive, and often driven more by control than by operational reality.
Internal politics between competing security companies appeared to strongly influence how rules were applied on the ground. In practice, management frequently imposed restrictions that went beyond formal regulations — and at times even worked against the practical needs of security work itself.
A series of informal but strictly enforced rules shaped daily working conditions. These included:
- Not being allowed to wear a beanie or scarf during winter
- Not being permitted to place hands in pockets, even in cold conditions
- Being prohibited from smoking — despite other contracted surveillance teams at the same mall being allowed to do so
- Being required to stand upright at all times
- Being expected to remain operational during lunch breaks
- Not being allowed to stop or rest — patrols had to be continuous
- Being discouraged from speaking to anyone unless it was strictly official vigilante business
We were also forbidden from communicating with other surveillance teams operating in the same environment.
This was presented as a measure to preserve professional boundaries, but in practice it appeared to stem from leadership paranoia and competitive tension between companies.
From a security perspective, this created unnecessary isolation.
Coordination and situational awareness are essential in shared operational spaces such as large commercial environments. Yet informal communication between teams — even basic information sharing — was actively discouraged.
Personally, I had maintained good working relationships with members of the other security teams on site. Cooperation between personnel from different companies would naturally have improved safety and response readiness. However, management viewed such interaction with suspicion rather than as a benefit.
We were also required to patrol alone.
This was particularly concerning because, during previous discussions with members of the Carabinieri, I had been informally advised that paired patrols were often considered a safer operational standard in certain environments. However, solo patrol appeared to be enforced due to staffing limitations following a low-budget Palto contract win, which did not allow for sufficient personnel.
There were also instances of unusual procedural rules.
For example:
We were not allowed to remain inside the office when off duty. On one occasion, this meant standing outside for approximately three hours in the rain while waiting for a mandatory medical inspection — even though the inspection itself took place inside the same office.
Excessive, Paranoid Oversight
Management spent far too much time monitoring staff, often operating in a state of constant paranoia. Every movement, conversation, and minor action was scrutinized, creating an environment of distrust.
This obsessive oversight was not focused on improving safety or operational effectiveness; rather, it seemed aimed at controlling staff through fear. Even routine tasks were treated as potential infractions, and normal human errors were exaggerated into serious problems.
The result was a toxic atmosphere where employees were hesitant to act independently, communicate freely, or take initiative — all of which undermined both morale and the primary goal of keeping patrons safe.
Instead on a focus on keeping the mall safe, a large portion of human resources went to the continuous management of the staff & directors as our Supervisor was possessed with the politics in the office. We often had to spy on the directors , mall management and each-other through direct orders…
At times we were even expected to assist the cleaning staff when influential figures appeared at the mall
Overall, the emphasis seemed less on safety or operational effectiveness and more on discipline, control, and competitive separation — even when this ran contrary to the cooperative nature of effective security work.
A Culture of Fear
The working environment was defined by fear.
Management operated in a way that felt outdated — closer to an authoritarian, 1980s-style command structure than to a modern professional workplace.
As a result, staff often felt pressured to report on one another in order to gain favour or avoid negative attention. Minor observations were elevated into disciplinary concerns, creating an atmosphere where people monitored each other rather than supporting each other.
Small, everyday issues were frequently treated as serious infractions.
Examples included:
- Walking with hands in pockets
- Attempting to adjust or repair issued uniforms so they appeared neat
- Being blamed for clothing damage, even when uniforms were poorly fitted or tore easily during routine movement
Because the issued clothing often did not fit properly and could tear when bending or catching on surfaces, staff sometimes tried to make practical adjustments themselves — yet this was viewed negatively rather than as an attempt to maintain professional standards.
The overall environment became highly stressful and at times openly hostile.
Management responses to routine challenges often involved raised voices rather than structured problem-solving. This appeared to stem less from operational necessity and more from an inability to manage pressure calmly.
Team morale was consistently low.
There was a widespread perception that disciplinary action was driven more by personal dynamics than by professional performance. Minor issues were sometimes escalated, creating a reputation that staff could be dismissed over relatively small matters.
I also experienced situations where my supervisor asked me questions about colleagues that were unrelated to work — such as who supported her personally or who might have been speaking negatively about her.
These concerns were raised frequently and contributed to a climate of suspicion rather than cooperation.
In my view, had management adopted more modern leadership practices — focusing on trust, teamwork, and shared responsibility — the team would likely have functioned more effectively.
Instead, the structure encouraged competition and mistrust among staff, which ultimately weakened cohesion and operational readiness.
Questionable Hiring and Deployment Practices
Our manager had a reputation for high staff turnover — frequently hiring and dismissing personnel in ways that felt inconsistent and, at times, concerning.
There were also instances where individuals with significant medical conditions were hired and assigned to physically demanding patrol duties.
For example:
- One staff member suffered from epilepsy.
- Another stated that she had a certified 68% physical disability.
- And another seemed to be on chronic medication for some sort of mental disorder as he clearly suffered from depression
Despite these limitations, both were assigned to full patrol responsibilities, including shifts lasting up to eight hours and requiring extensive daily walking.
In most cases, patrol routes could exceed 30 kilometres in a single day — distances that would challenge even fully fit personnel.
Over time, this level of activity amounted to the equivalent of walking across national borders each month.
The concern was not about inclusion, but about whether appropriate role allocation and duty-of-care considerations were being applied.
Assigning physically demanding tasks without clear adjustment for medical limitations raised questions about both staff safety and operational responsibility.
Insufficient Training
Staff received little to no practical training in managing critical incidents such as theft or physical confrontation.
From both a legal and psychological standpoint, we were expected to handle volatile situations responsibly — yet we were not provided with:
- De-escalation techniques
- Scenario-based training
- Clear legal guidance on use of force
- Structured course material
De-escalation was described as a core responsibility of our role, and physical self-defence was to be used only as a last resort. However, most staff had no background in self-defence, conflict management, or situational control.
My own situation was different.
Prior to this role, I had faced life-threatening situations while dealing with suspects in my country of origin & when I expressed my concerns as I am detailing in this document, I was treated with hostility by management. My experience has given me a level of practical awareness that many of my colleagues had not been given the opportunity to develop through training nor experience.
Additionally, I was the only staff member who could communicate confidently in English — despite the fact that most visitors at the mall were English-speaking. This raised further questions about whether hiring decisions were aligned with the operational needs of the environment & I was always called in to resolve issues that my colleagues were unable to resolve due to the language barrier.
The training gap became particularly evident during an incident on patrol involving a senior colleague. Due to limited legal understanding and practical preparation, the situation was mismanaged to the extent that management intervened over the radio in real time.
The escalation that followed resulted in me being injured during the confrontation with the suspect.
Despite this, I was ultimately able to bring the situation under control — but only after the initial mismanagement had significantly increased the level of risk involved.
The incident underscored how substantial responsibility had been placed on staff without the corresponding investment in training required to carry it out safely.
The responsibility placed on staff without providing the training necessary to carry it out safely or lawfully is professionally absurd & carries many risk factors for management.
It was likely for this reason that, when a senior team member mishandled the incident, I was able to step in and stabilize the situation.
Distraction from Core Responsibilities
A significant portion of our time and energy was spent on tasks that had little or nothing to do with security or surveillance. The focus on aesthetics and manual labour at the mall frequently took precedence over our core responsibility: keeping people safe.
Examples included:
- Continuously carrying boxes and supplies for mall management
- Assisting manual labourers with maintenance tasks
- Running administrative errands, such as collecting items for mall displays or photo shoots
- Handling dozens of transenne (roadblocks) at a time — sometimes up to 30 at once — over distances exceeding 100 meters to support maintenance or event setups
These duties, combined with chronic understaffing due to budget constraints, consistently pulled us away from surveillance tasks. The workload forced staff to prioritize manual labour over monitoring, patrolling, and responding to potential security threats.
The result was that our primary mission — the safety of patrons and staff — was compromised.
Favouritism and Unequal Treatment
There was a clear pattern of favouritism in how management treated staff. Employees who made serious mistakes — in some cases much more significant than my own — were often overlooked if they were “in the good books” with the supervisor.
At the same time, I and other staff members were subjected to heavy criticism, emotional abuse, and punitive responses for relatively minor infractions.
In my case, I strongly believe that this unequal treatment was influenced by racism, as I was born and raised in Africa. This bias appeared to affect both how mistakes were perceived and how discipline was enforced.
The result was a deeply demoralising work environment, where merit and actual performance were often secondary to personal relationships with management.
An Impractical Focus on Mall Image Over Security
Management placed an excessive emphasis on the appearance and aesthetics of the mall, often at the expense of actual security and surveillance responsibilities. Staff were expected to prioritize visual presentation and support for events, displays, and maintenance over monitoring and protecting patrons.
This included:
- Assisting with manual labour tasks unrelated to security, such as moving heavy boxes, setting up decorations, or helping maintenance crews
- Running errands for mall management, including collecting items for displays or photo shoots
- Carrying dozens of transenne (roadblocks) over long distances to assist in setup for events or traffic control, rather than focusing on surveillance patrols
As a result, our core mission — ensuring the safety of visitors and staff — was consistently compromised. Valuable time that should have been spent observing, patrolling, and preventing incidents was diverted to menial tasks.
The focus on appearances over operational security created an environment where safety took a backseat, and staff were constantly stretched thin trying to balance physical labour, administrative tasks, and their actual security duties.
Excessive Bureaucracy Undermining Security
The Italian bureaucracy surrounding our role often discouraged direct engagement with suspects or the enforcement of rules within the mall. Staff were frequently constrained by procedural requirements, excessive reporting obligations, and rigid protocols that left little room for practical decision-making in real time.
We were constantly forced to “dance between the raindrops,” trying to navigate complex rules while still attempting to maintain security. Even simple actions, such as addressing minor infractions or intervening in suspicious situations, risked triggering administrative scrutiny or complaints.
This overemphasis on paperwork and formal procedures created delays, reduced staff autonomy, and ultimately undermined our ability to respond effectively to real threats — leaving both personnel and patrons at greater risk.
Restricted Access to Shops
We were forbidden from entering the stores; our surveillance had to be conducted entirely from the outside. This policy created significant risks for both shop staff and customers, as it limited our ability to respond quickly to incidents occurring inside the premises.
Even simple actions, such as buying a coffee during our shifts, were prohibited. While management claimed this maintained professionalism, it left shops unnecessarily vulnerable and reduced our effectiveness as surveillance officers.
By preventing physical access, management prioritized rigid rules over practical safety measures, further undermining the security of both employees and patrons.
Unsafe and Unsanitary Office Conditions
The office provided for staff was tiny, poorly ventilated, and lacked even basic facilities such as seating or a proper place to eat.
Because of the cramped space and poor airflow, when one staff member became ill, others quickly caught the same illness. Several colleagues fell sick as a direct result of these conditions.
The office environment was not only uncomfortable but also a clear health hazard, further undermining morale and the ability of staff to perform their duties effectively.
Summary: Key Points from My Experience
- Inadequate equipment — Torches, radios, clothing, and footwear were insufficient for operational safety.
- Unsafe uniforms — Poorly fitting, non-protective, and unsuitable for weather or assault hazards.
- Unreliable communication systems — Radios and headsets frequently malfunctioned, leaving staff isolated.
- Outdated software and privacy risks — Surveillance systems ran on unsupported platforms, risking both cybersecurity and compliance with EU privacy laws.
- Paranoid management style — Authoritarian, 1980s-style leadership fostered fear, suspicion, and internal competition.
- Isolation and restrictions — Staff were forbidden from coordinating with other security teams, contrary to safe operational practice.
- High staff turnover and questionable hiring — Employees with severe medical conditions were assigned physically demanding tasks.
- Insufficient training — Staff lacked de-escalation, self-defence, and legal knowledge; responsibility outstripped preparation.
- Distracting, non-security duties — Staff were regularly tasked with manual labour, administrative errands, and mall aesthetic tasks.
- Favouritism and unequal treatment — Mistakes by favoured staff were ignored, while others faced harsh criticism; racial bias was a concern.
- Excessive bureaucracy — Rigid procedures discouraged direct engagement with suspects and enforcement of rules.
- High-stress, hostile work environment — Staff were constantly monitored and criticised, creating low morale and tension.
- Unrealistic workload — Understaffed patrols, excessive distances, and physically demanding tasks increased operational risk.
- Restricted access to shops — Officers were forbidden from entering stores, limiting response capability and leaving staff and customers vulnerable.
- Unsafe and unsanitary office conditions — Tiny, poorly ventilated offices without seating or eating space led to multiple staff members falling ill.
- Operational risks to patrons — The combination of poor management, inadequate resources, and distractions from security duties left mall patrons unsafe.
Conclusion: The operational environment, combined with inadequate resources, training, and management practices, meant that mall patrons were not kept safe.
