IP: Illusion of Security

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:37:54 -0500
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Kelley <kelley () interpactinc com>
> Subject: Illusion of Security
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Just forwarding along an interesting article, somewhat similar to the 
> NERF-based Security articles you posted last October.
>
> Best,
>
> Kelley
>
> Illusion of Security
> Ching Lee, Sacramento News and Review
> January 16, 2002
> http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12237
>
> In the middle of the central city, there's a house with a "Beware of Dog" 
> sign posted by the entrance on the gate. This sign is what security 
> experts call creating an "illusion of security."
>
> It's a poor man's security system, but it's better than having nothing at 
> all. They say that if you were a burglar and had to choose between 
> breaking into a house with such a sign and one without, chances are you'd 
> choose the one without.
>
> But how much do you want to rely on this illusion for security? If you 
> were a homeowner with a little bit more to protect, chances are you'd 
> probably want more than just a sign to keep burglars out. You'd probably 
> want a real dog, or an alarm system, or a gun.
>
> Since September 11, there's been a lot of talk about security, 
> particularly the holes in it. Some critics believe that the breach of 
> security that happened on 9-11 shows how our nation has been operating 
> under a "beware of dog" security system.
>
> And while there have been some security measures put in place that 
> actually have teeth, much of our response has been akin to just posting 
> more "beware of dog" signs: visual deterrents that seem to do little to 
> actually foil bad guys.
>
> Signs or dogs? There are now troops at the airports and guards outside 
> many government buildings. They join a rapidly expanding army of security 
> guards who are watching over more and more of our public places. Watching, 
> and serving as a sign of vigilance against evildoers.
>
> But are they making us safer? Or are they just cosmetic enhancements to 
> make us feel safer?
>
> The concerns and challenges faced today by the Federal Aviation 
> Administration -- which is trying to beef up and professionalize baggage 
> screeners and other security positions -- are the same ones shared by the 
> private security industry.
>
> It took 9-11 to raise the stature of airport screeners. Before that, they 
> were merely an invisible link in the security hierarchy, nothing more than 
> minimum-wage earners on an assembly line -- much like your average unarmed 
> security guard.
>
> "I tried several years ago to raise issues about airport security," said 
> Al Howenstein, legislative representative of the California Association of 
> Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and Associates (CALSAGA). "You talk 
> about the weakest link -- in any operation it's usually at the lowest level."
>
> The airline industry did the same thing that many businesses do with 
> regards to security, Howenstein pointed out: they went for the lowest bid. 
> They chose the cheapest possible options from security companies that will 
> offer them the cheapest rate, spending the least amount of money on those 
> individuals performing menial security functions.
>
> Therefore, they got what they paid for: a sign instead of the dog.
>
> <snip>
>
> http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12237
>
>
> --
> Kelley Walker
> Interpact, Inc.
> http://www.interpactinc.com/

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/