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.
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.
ReplyDeleteFrom 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.
ReplyDeleteFrom the "highlight" page of the report:
ReplyDeleteFor example, at a level IV facility, an infant in a carrier was sent through an x-ray machine due to a guard's negligence.