ought to be the corollary to the old saw about locks as the GAO will report tomorrow according to the Wapost.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
IS this story getting followed up on in today's wapost? These stories are hard to cover in a distilled little story because there is so much more to it. We all know from working within these same halls that were probably 'tested' that causing harm would certainly not be impossible. I would argue that the security is more that lip service, but also that it does spend 99% of its time hassling the vary people that it serves to secure. However, creating the impression of a 'harder' target than an unsecured building really does factor into deterrence. And that is impossible to quantify or qualify. How do you know how many persons conducted a wal by of your building and saw a bag being searched and decided that building was 'too hard'? On the other hand, the security will never be able to prevent a person with 'access' from be able to do bad things should they desire to. At least not within our current security paradigms and the general belief that those with access should not be hassled going to work on a daily basis. There are few organizations that watch the trusted as well as the watchers.
From my perspective, I don't expect perfection, but I do expect machine-like focus by these professionals on the task at hand. Their jobs are to, as you say, present a hard target. I know what it is like to stand a long watch and feel like nothing is going to happen. It takes discipline not to be taken in by that siren song. This is what our taxes are paying them to do. Our taxes are also paying for their leadership to address these common pitfalls in creative ways to mitigate against security lapses. Yes, I know these are government employees. However, I believe that if a few folks got fired over this, it might send a message.
The Blog: A compendium of thoughts on politics, world affairs, economics, pop culture and social issues, from the center right perspective of me--Bryan McGrath--a University of Virginia graduate who spent a career in the world's greatest Navy keeping my mouth shut about politics and social issues (ok, publicly keeping it shut). Those days are over! Pull up a chair and chime in where you will. Keep it clean, civil, concise and relevant.
The Fish: The fish is a "coat of arms" for the blog, symbolizing three formative influences in the life of the blog founder. The first is his experience at the University of Virginia--symbolized most importantly by the fish itself, or a caricature of a "Wahoo", the fish we have acquired as an informal nickname. Additionally there is the sword, the sword of a Cavalier. It is not wielded in a threatening manner, as this is a civil blog. But it is there, should it be needed. Thirdly, there is the influence of 21 years in the Navy--symbolized by the anchor on the Wahoo's fin (and again, the sword) . Finally, there is the bowler, tuxedo, and monocle, symbols of a refined, intellectual conservatism, or what I seek to encourage here.
The Policy: I take FULL responsibility for what I write. I will not be held responsible for the content of my comments section--as long as it is civil and passes my own inscrutable sniff tests, it will appear. If the comment offends you, that is on you.
Feedjit
Follow Me:
On Twitter at ConsWahoo On Facebook at "Fans of The Conservative Wahoo"
3 comments:
IS this story getting followed up on in today's wapost? These stories are hard to cover in a distilled little story because there is so much more to it. We all know from working within these same halls that were probably 'tested' that causing harm would certainly not be impossible. I would argue that the security is more that lip service, but also that it does spend 99% of its time hassling the vary people that it serves to secure. However, creating the impression of a 'harder' target than an unsecured building really does factor into deterrence. And that is impossible to quantify or qualify. How do you know how many persons conducted a wal by of your building and saw a bag being searched and decided that building was 'too hard'? On the other hand, the security will never be able to prevent a person with 'access' from be able to do bad things should they desire to. At least not within our current security paradigms and the general belief that those with access should not be hassled going to work on a daily basis. There are few organizations that watch the trusted as well as the watchers.
From my perspective, I don't expect perfection, but I do expect machine-like focus by these professionals on the task at hand. Their jobs are to, as you say, present a hard target. I know what it is like to stand a long watch and feel like nothing is going to happen. It takes discipline not to be taken in by that siren song. This is what our taxes are paying them to do. Our taxes are also paying for their leadership to address these common pitfalls in creative ways to mitigate against security lapses. Yes, I know these are government employees. However, I believe that if a few folks got fired over this, it might send a message.
From the "highlight" page of the report:
For example, at a level IV facility, an infant in a carrier was sent through an x-ray machine due to a guard's negligence.
Post a Comment