Contnued Security Neglect & Idiotic Planning
Smart Cameras, Guards to Protect WTC
The article link above discusses the security planning for the new World Trade Center that will soon be built on and around the spot where the twin WTC towers stood prior to 9-11. The article discusses all of the planning and cooperation that is going into making this incarnation of the World Trade Center safe from terrorist attacks in the future. The article discusses involving the architects, the New York City police, fire and building departments, security experts on biometrics and specialized cameras, and the nature of the security forces that will work together to protect the new World Trade Center.
Thare are two statements made in the article that struck me as the epitome of security in the post-9-11 era:
For me, this raises the spectre of Big Brother. The World Trade Center will be owend and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a cooperative governmental authority representing two states. The idea that a governmental property designed for housing commerce and public should have such strict security is overkill. We have to remember that the twin towers were not brought down by terrorists on the ground. Two planes were hijacked and flown right into the structures. No extreme security system could have prevented this type of attack. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 involved a truck bomb that got into the delivery areas of the underground garage. If anyplace needed the tighter security, it would be the parking and delivery areas. But even in these areas, ordinary security cameras placed effectively, plus an accurate registration and screening process for established vendors, deliveries and parking garage patrons. If the garage used a registration process that allowed tracking (i.e. RFID tags on tickets that could detect a vehicle over-staying its welcome) and a security force that could physically check suspicious vehicles, it would prevent all but the most determined of terrorists... who would steal another set of planes and crash them into the new building... which segways into my next rant.
Well, therein lies the rub. When we look at security across the nation we find that the vast majority of security workers are treated as second-class workers, offered almost no training, and wages so low that there is no incentive to really care about the job of making a place secure. Even our laws concerning what security guards can do to protect a site, detain suspicious individuals, and do their jobs are not consistent or even clear in some jurisdictions. Most security positions are low-paying jobs and are mostly seen as a way of preventing some major liabilities if a company is sued.
Logan International Aiport in Boston is a good example. After the security beef-up a few months after the events of 9-11, there was a huge increase in the number of security guards hired for airport security. State police officer foot and vehicle patrols were increased. Airport patrons were limited to how, where and when they could park, stand or drop-off/pick-up passengers. The security force even got brand new blue security jumpsuits. The problem was that as I visited the airport to pick-up or drop-off friends or relatives, it was clear that the security plan was failing to do the job.
There were gaggles of security workers, all dressed in their brand new jumpsuits, standing around in small groups of 10-15, smoking, joking or talking, but not doing one damned thing to screen, observe or monitor anyone moving in or out of the airport. The state police were very active keeping vehicles away from the doors of the terminals, and giving out lots of high-priced tickets that raised lots of revenues. The national guard troops that were activated to perform roving patrols were in the terminal areas where travelers had already passed through security checks and were under the watchful eyes of boarding staff who were also asking people to remove their shoes, but no one was watching the baggage check-in or pick-up areas.
A contact of mine that works for the baggage handling system at Logan still complains of the lack of training, the rapid turnover of employees (largely due to low wages for exhausting work), the lack of screening, and the lackadaisical enforcement of ID badge usage. He has advocated for actual guards at various vulnerable entry areas into "authorized personnel only" spaces and has been rebuked for suggesting that the surveillance cameras alone are not effective.
Logan is not alone. Anyone with security training passing through O'Hare, JFK or San Francisco international airports can see dozens of security problems. Oddly enough, the airport I found the greatest risks was at Washington (DC) National. Philadelphia is not that great either. Two of the most secure airports I have seen are Machester (NH) and Green in Providence (RI) [although Green has a high rate of near misses last time I checked... but the airport security is pretty good!].
But as long as security continues to be primarily focused on the technology alone, relegating the security staff to low-paid, un-trained, and under-appreciated status, our security systems will be prone to fail when we most need them. Security technology is like any other tool or technological advancement... it is only as good as the people operating it and the principle of GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out) applies 110%.
Don't get me started on train stations, subway systems, trucking terminals, power plants, fuel storage depots or our PORTS!
The article link above discusses the security planning for the new World Trade Center that will soon be built on and around the spot where the twin WTC towers stood prior to 9-11. The article discusses all of the planning and cooperation that is going into making this incarnation of the World Trade Center safe from terrorist attacks in the future. The article discusses involving the architects, the New York City police, fire and building departments, security experts on biometrics and specialized cameras, and the nature of the security forces that will work together to protect the new World Trade Center.
Thare are two statements made in the article that struck me as the epitome of security in the post-9-11 era:
"Kallstrom and city and federal officials are aiming for a higher standard of security than is currently in use for public spaces around the nation."
For me, this raises the spectre of Big Brother. The World Trade Center will be owend and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a cooperative governmental authority representing two states. The idea that a governmental property designed for housing commerce and public should have such strict security is overkill. We have to remember that the twin towers were not brought down by terrorists on the ground. Two planes were hijacked and flown right into the structures. No extreme security system could have prevented this type of attack. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 involved a truck bomb that got into the delivery areas of the underground garage. If anyplace needed the tighter security, it would be the parking and delivery areas. But even in these areas, ordinary security cameras placed effectively, plus an accurate registration and screening process for established vendors, deliveries and parking garage patrons. If the garage used a registration process that allowed tracking (i.e. RFID tags on tickets that could detect a vehicle over-staying its welcome) and a security force that could physically check suspicious vehicles, it would prevent all but the most determined of terrorists... who would steal another set of planes and crash them into the new building... which segways into my next rant.
"The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site and has its own police force, could share responsibility for the site with city police and highly trained, armed security guards. 'These will not be minimum-wage people,' Kallstrom said."
Well, therein lies the rub. When we look at security across the nation we find that the vast majority of security workers are treated as second-class workers, offered almost no training, and wages so low that there is no incentive to really care about the job of making a place secure. Even our laws concerning what security guards can do to protect a site, detain suspicious individuals, and do their jobs are not consistent or even clear in some jurisdictions. Most security positions are low-paying jobs and are mostly seen as a way of preventing some major liabilities if a company is sued.
Logan International Aiport in Boston is a good example. After the security beef-up a few months after the events of 9-11, there was a huge increase in the number of security guards hired for airport security. State police officer foot and vehicle patrols were increased. Airport patrons were limited to how, where and when they could park, stand or drop-off/pick-up passengers. The security force even got brand new blue security jumpsuits. The problem was that as I visited the airport to pick-up or drop-off friends or relatives, it was clear that the security plan was failing to do the job.
There were gaggles of security workers, all dressed in their brand new jumpsuits, standing around in small groups of 10-15, smoking, joking or talking, but not doing one damned thing to screen, observe or monitor anyone moving in or out of the airport. The state police were very active keeping vehicles away from the doors of the terminals, and giving out lots of high-priced tickets that raised lots of revenues. The national guard troops that were activated to perform roving patrols were in the terminal areas where travelers had already passed through security checks and were under the watchful eyes of boarding staff who were also asking people to remove their shoes, but no one was watching the baggage check-in or pick-up areas.
A contact of mine that works for the baggage handling system at Logan still complains of the lack of training, the rapid turnover of employees (largely due to low wages for exhausting work), the lack of screening, and the lackadaisical enforcement of ID badge usage. He has advocated for actual guards at various vulnerable entry areas into "authorized personnel only" spaces and has been rebuked for suggesting that the surveillance cameras alone are not effective.
Logan is not alone. Anyone with security training passing through O'Hare, JFK or San Francisco international airports can see dozens of security problems. Oddly enough, the airport I found the greatest risks was at Washington (DC) National. Philadelphia is not that great either. Two of the most secure airports I have seen are Machester (NH) and Green in Providence (RI) [although Green has a high rate of near misses last time I checked... but the airport security is pretty good!].
But as long as security continues to be primarily focused on the technology alone, relegating the security staff to low-paid, un-trained, and under-appreciated status, our security systems will be prone to fail when we most need them. Security technology is like any other tool or technological advancement... it is only as good as the people operating it and the principle of GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out) applies 110%.
Don't get me started on train stations, subway systems, trucking terminals, power plants, fuel storage depots or our PORTS!
posted by Jim Downey at 8:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home