People like impractical "security measures" that inconvenience everyone and would not provide the slightest hindrance to a serious threat. They like to see those measures in place. It reassures them to see control being visibly exerted. Oh, they will complain a bit - but listen to how they put it! People will say "Well, this is a pain in the ass, but at least something is being done." Then everyone will kind of think about that, and you can see them visibly relax and resign themselves to the wait.
People don't generally say: "Well, this is a pain in the ass, but at least we know these measures wouldn't stop anybody half-competent or determined." That's not a fun thing to say. Nobody wants to hear that, and especially nobody wants to start running down the examples in detail! People don't care, or even consider, that our token high-visibility inconveniences would not stop a real threat. Especially in cases where security measures are enacted "in response to" a spectacular attack, it is usually quite easy to see that the measures enacted could not have thwarted those same attackers, if they had been in place at the time. The measures are insufficient for security - the attackers could still have pulled off the same result, with a few tweaks to the plan.
But no matter how obvious that conclusion might be if you think about it - it doesn't matter in practice, because people don't want to think about it. Stopping a real threat is not the point of these measures. The point is to create a greater appearance of control.
Highly-visible "security measures" - even if they are not really obstacles to a determined threat - do create the impression of a more secure environment. That's a good thing. That impression may even deter a few nuisance-level threats from attempting anything, since they see token measures are in place. Token measures are sometimes enough to deter low-level operators (the classic example is a bike lock). But again, that's not the real benefit or the real purpose. For most security measures, the main purpose isn't security. It's reassurance.
Reassurance is important. Sheep must be reassured that no matter how helpless we all truly are, in the face of a determined threat: at least something is being done. I say that speaking as a sheep!
Who doesn't like being reassured? I like long lines in airports. It's nice to see them make an effort, even if people can kind of see, "yeah...that's probably kind of pointless." But we can still feel good about it, because at least they're doing something. And not only "they" are - so are we! We're all sort of one team on behalf of security. We're organized and we hit our marks, we all go through the screens and controls and we're all on board with the program - we're part of the security team! We're all making that effort.
That's how I see it. I get enthused and I try to participate any way I can. I always try to pitch in to reinforce that secure mood. Anytime anyone grouses, I'm like "hey man, I feel more secure. Something is being done." If they start to object, naming off the various terrorist attacks and events that could swim right through these measures with no problem, I kind of lay back and offer minor responses and prompts, trying to maneuver the conversation so that he (and it's always a guy, too - what is it with testosterone?) accidentally says the word "bomb."
Once he says that, I can totally get him thrown out of there! Arm rigid straight in the air, wave a frantic hand, "Excuse me! Excuse me! Security! This guy just said the 'b' word!" Get that guy out of there, he's a security risk.
Grousers are the biggest security threat, because they destroy the illusion of safety for the rest of us.
People don't generally say: "Well, this is a pain in the ass, but at least we know these measures wouldn't stop anybody half-competent or determined." That's not a fun thing to say. Nobody wants to hear that, and especially nobody wants to start running down the examples in detail! People don't care, or even consider, that our token high-visibility inconveniences would not stop a real threat. Especially in cases where security measures are enacted "in response to" a spectacular attack, it is usually quite easy to see that the measures enacted could not have thwarted those same attackers, if they had been in place at the time. The measures are insufficient for security - the attackers could still have pulled off the same result, with a few tweaks to the plan.
But no matter how obvious that conclusion might be if you think about it - it doesn't matter in practice, because people don't want to think about it. Stopping a real threat is not the point of these measures. The point is to create a greater appearance of control.
Highly-visible "security measures" - even if they are not really obstacles to a determined threat - do create the impression of a more secure environment. That's a good thing. That impression may even deter a few nuisance-level threats from attempting anything, since they see token measures are in place. Token measures are sometimes enough to deter low-level operators (the classic example is a bike lock). But again, that's not the real benefit or the real purpose. For most security measures, the main purpose isn't security. It's reassurance.
Reassurance is important. Sheep must be reassured that no matter how helpless we all truly are, in the face of a determined threat: at least something is being done. I say that speaking as a sheep!
Who doesn't like being reassured? I like long lines in airports. It's nice to see them make an effort, even if people can kind of see, "yeah...that's probably kind of pointless." But we can still feel good about it, because at least they're doing something. And not only "they" are - so are we! We're all sort of one team on behalf of security. We're organized and we hit our marks, we all go through the screens and controls and we're all on board with the program - we're part of the security team! We're all making that effort.
That's how I see it. I get enthused and I try to participate any way I can. I always try to pitch in to reinforce that secure mood. Anytime anyone grouses, I'm like "hey man, I feel more secure. Something is being done." If they start to object, naming off the various terrorist attacks and events that could swim right through these measures with no problem, I kind of lay back and offer minor responses and prompts, trying to maneuver the conversation so that he (and it's always a guy, too - what is it with testosterone?) accidentally says the word "bomb."
Once he says that, I can totally get him thrown out of there! Arm rigid straight in the air, wave a frantic hand, "Excuse me! Excuse me! Security! This guy just said the 'b' word!" Get that guy out of there, he's a security risk.
Grousers are the biggest security threat, because they destroy the illusion of safety for the rest of us.
Comments