Search

Področje zasebnega varovanja je urejeno z Zakonom o zasebnem varovanju (ZZasV, 2011), ki ureja pravice in dolžnosti različnih subjektov zasebnega varovanja. Ključni akter zasebnega varovanja so zasebni varnostniki. To so osebe, ki neposredno opravljajo naloge zasebnega varovanja in lahko pri svojem delu uporabljajo ukrepe, določene v ZZasV (2011). V magistrskem delu smo ugotavljali, kakšno mnenje imajo študenti Fakultete za varnostne vede o zasebnih varnostnikih in predvsem, kako se je to spremenilo od leta 2003 do 2017. V raziskavi iz leta 2003 (Nalla, Meško, Sotlar in Bodiroža, 2004) so obravnavana vprašanja o strokovnosti in naravi dela varnostnikov, ki smo jih uporabili tudi v naši raziskavi (2017) in tako pridobili podatke za primerjavo ugotovitev obeh raziskav. Za leto 2017 smo s preverjanjem hipotez ugotovili, da študenti FVV menijo, da varnostniki svojega dela ne opravljajo zelo profesionalno, da ni razlike v mnenju med študenti in študentkami ter da imajo študenti s pozitivnimi izkušnjami z varnostniki boljše mnenje o njih kot tisti z negativnimi izkušnjami. V primerjavi z letom 2003 študenti FVV v letu 2017 zasebne varnostnike vidijo kot enako profesionalne, na drugi strani pa se jim njihovo delo zdi bolj pomembno, koristno in zahtevno (»narava dela varnostnikov«). Mnenje o profesionalnosti varnostnikov se torej ni izboljšalo, medtem ko se je mnenje o naravi dela izboljšalo, sprememb splošnega mnenja o varnostnikih pa ni mogoče ugotoviti. Lahko trdimo le, da se splošno mnenje o varnostnikih ni poslabšalo. The field of private security is regulated by the Private Security Act (Zakon o zasebnem varovanju, 2011), which regulates the rights and duties of various private security entities. The key actors in private security are private security guards. A security guard is a person that performs private security assignments and is allowed to use measures laid down in the aforementioned Private Security Act. This master’s thesis wished to determine the opinions of students of the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security about private security guards in Slovenia and how these opinions have changed from 2003 to 2017. A survey from 2003 (Nalla, Meško, Sotlar and Bodiroža, 2004) asked questions about security guards’ professionalism and the nature of their work. The same questions were used to obtain data for the present survey, which enabled excellent comparison between these two years. The key research findings of 2017 are: students of the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security are of the opinion that private security guards are not very professional there is no difference of opinion between male and female students and students with positive experiences have a better opinion of security guards, compared to students with negative experiences. Students in the 2017 survey view the work of security guards to be just as professional as it was in 2003, but they assess their work as more important, useful and hard (“nature of work”) than they did in 2003. Given the two above-mentioned findings it cannot be concluded that the general opinion about private security guards has improved since 2003, nor can it be disproved. It can only be concluded that students' opinions of private security guards in Slovenia have not worsened.

Pravica do zasebnosti je zelo kompleksen pojav. Skozi zgodovino človeštva je zasebnost postajala vedno bolj cenjena in iskana dobrina, vendar pa se zdi, da je v sodobnem času ponovno postala ogrožena. Pravico do zasebnosti danes ščiti vrsta mednarodnih dokumentov. Zelo pomembna je Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah (EKČP). Za spoštovanje te konvencije skrbi Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice (ESČP), kamor se posamezniki iz držav podpisnic lahko pritožijo. 8. člen EKČP govori o pravici do zasebnosti posameznika in je razdeljen na dva odstavka: v prvem delu razloži, katere pravice so zaščitene (zasebno življenje, družinsko življenje, zasebnost doma, zasebnost dopisovanja), v drugem delu pa navaja, da te pravice niso absolutne in da je včasih poseg v te pravice upravičen, vendar le takrat, ko je poseg v skladu z zakonom in nujen v demokratični družbi. Od leta 1959, ko je bilo ESČP ustanovljeno, se je pred njim nabralo že veliko primerov. Naj omenimo le nekatere zanimivejše, ki se tičejo 8. člena EKČP: Gaskin proti Združenemu kraljestvu, López Ostra proti Španiji, Ciper proti Turčiji, Kruslin proti Franciji, Klass in drugi proti Nemčiji, Halford proti Združenemu kraljestvu itd. Tudi Slovenija je imela nekaj primerov na ESČP-ju zaradi kršitve 8. člena EKČP. Zelo odmeven je gotovo primer Kurić in ostali proti Sloveniji, ki se nanaša na izbrisane, torej na ljudi, ki so ob osamosvojitvi Slovenije ostali brez pravice do stalnega prebivanja. The right to privacy is a very complex phenomenon. Throughout the history of mankind, privacy has become more and more important and appreciated by the people, but in present time privacy seems to be endangered again. The right to privacy is protected by numerous international documents. European Convention on Human Rights is one of the most important ones. European Court of Human Rights ensures that the Convention is respected. Individuals from states that have signed the Convention can appeal if their rights are violated. Article 8 of the Convention describes the Right to Privacy. It is divided into two sections. The first part explains which rights are protected (private life, family life, home and correspondence), while the second part states that these rights are not absolute and that interference with these rights can be justified, but only when the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in a democratic society. Since 1959, when the European Court of Human Rights was founded, there have been a lot of cases before the court. Let us mention just a few interesting ones: Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, López Ostra v. Spain, Cyprus v. Turkey, Kruslin v. France, Klass and Others v. Germany, Halford v. the United Kingdom, etc... Slovenia also has some cases because of the violation of art. 8. One of them is Kurić and Others v. Slovenia, which speaks about the occurrence of erased people. Those are the people who lost their right to permanent residence after Slovenia became an independent state.