Serious Concerns Regarding Equipment Removal, Privacy, and Security
We were customers of Knight Security for several years and previously had a positive working relationship with the company. Over that time, we invested thousands of dollars in security equipment and installation as our company grew, to help protect our property and the privacy of those we serve.
Unfortunately, a recent series of events involving equipment removed from our property, access to another customer's surveillance feeds, and concerns regarding the response to those issues ultimately resulted in our decision to terminate our relationship with Knight Security.
The events described in this review are based on our invoices, emails, written correspondence, and information provided to us by Knight Security and its representatives.
We recently moved to a new location, which required relocating our existing cameras and recording equipment and purchasing additional equipment to provide adequate coverage in the new space. Knight Security was responsible for removing our equipment from our previous location, transporting it to the new location, and installing both the existing and newly purchased equipment.
The installation itself had some issues. Cameras that were supposed to have audio did not, while cameras that were not intended to have audio did. Some camera placements also had to be corrected. These were frustrating but relatively minor issues that we were prepared to work through.
Our concerns became significantly more serious when we discovered that, after the move was completed, we had access to another Knight Security customer's surveillance cameras through our camera application. We were able to view another customer's private video feeds.
Those feeds showed portions of that customer's private property, including their driveway, garage, outdoor structures, vehicles, and backyard.
Our immediate concern was not simply how to remove those cameras from our application. We wanted to understand why we had access to another customer's surveillance system and whether our own cameras or surveillance feeds could similarly be accessible to someone else.
We immediately contacted Knight Security and were told that a manager would return our call. A technician contacted us later that afternoon but was unable to answer our questions regarding how the situation occurred or whether our own system could have been similarly affected. We were advised that we could delete the other customer's feed from our application and were told that it really was not a big deal.
We explained that simply deleting the feed did not address our underlying security and privacy concerns and requested that the issue be escalated.
When we did not receive an adequate response, we emailed the owner directly. We did not receive a response to that email. Days went by, and we continued to have access to the other customer's property without answers to our questions.
Five days after our initial notification, we contacted Knight again and emphasized the seriousness of the privacy issue and our concerns regarding the lack of response. It was only after continued follow-up that we began receiving additional information regarding what had occurred.
Through those discussions, we learned that a DVR that we had previously purchased and paid for had been removed from our property and subsequently resold to another Knight Security customer without our knowledge. This was the same customer whose surveillance cameras had appeared in our account.
This discovery raised additional concerns regarding equipment we had purchased from Knight over the course of our relationship.
During previous installations and system upgrades, we had purchased and paid for security equipment. As our system was upgraded over time, some equipment was removed from our property. We were not asked for permission to transfer that equipment back to Knight, were not advised that ownership of it would transfer back to Knight, and were not provided a credit for it at the time it was removed.
Knight acknowledged in written correspondence that the DVR had been removed and resold. We were also informed that the manager involved was no longer employed by the company and that Knight was implementing procedural changes.
The owner wrote:
"Looking back, I see some things we should have done better. I'm not sure how any old equipment that wasn't used didn't get returned to you."
Following this discovery, we conducted our own review of approximately three years of invoices and compared the equipment we had purchased against the equipment we could identify as remaining in our possession.
We identified additional purchased equipment that we could not account for.
Knight subsequently offered an $880.76 account credit related to various pieces of equipment that had been removed. We declined the account credit because, by that point, we had decided to terminate our relationship with the company. read more
