A real-life satire news story #572,380,992
Yes, it's time again for the latest installment of Inefficient Security Measures, with the latest round coming in the country in response the London bombings. Almost any given paragraph in this morning's article in the Post about new security steps being taken in the New York and Washington subway systems can prove that the first reaction of people in authority is the most bone-headed one possible:
Metro Transit Police Chief Polly L. Hanson said Metro officials are studying the idea of bag searches and will see how the practice works in New York, where the city's buses and subways carry 7 million passengers a day -- more than half the nation's daily mass-transit riders.I'm sorry...I'm sure I must have read that wrong, because who in their right mind would seriously suggest trying to search the bags of SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE? The answer to that is, of course, no one in their right mind would suggest that. We need security measures, okay. But bag checks at a subway station is just not going to work. Absolutely no way, unless the theory is that everyone will be safe from subway terrorist attacks if the subway is such a hassle that no one uses it.
Then you've Hanson, who I can't believe is allowed to talk to the media after making sure that newspapers get quotes that drum up hysteria and frustration:
"It's going to be a total lockdown," Hanson said. "We want to make a secure environment. . . . The incidents in London, I think, have really made people realize the vulnerability of public transportation. Here you had a city on high alert. They've just had a terrible incident two weeks ago. They were on high alert, and whatever's happened has happened today."I'm sorry...I'm sure I must have read that wrong. Did she really say that "it's going to be a total lockdown"? That's going to make Metro riders happy, that they'll be "locked down". Did the police chief of the metro really just call public transportation "vulnerable"? Good idea. And the last one isn't any indication of bad security, but it just a dumb thing to say: "whatever's happened has happened today". What a command of the English language she has!
As a couple of California tourists rightly point out in the article, "[the terrorists] have shown that even if you prepare for it, if they want to do something they're going to do it. It doesn't matter if you have all kinds of security or not. You have to keep going." Why do these people seem to be so rational? Because they're not in charge of the security of this country. At a certain point, you have to carry with your lives and hope for the best. Do we need better security on public transportation? Sure. But it has to be security that works, and not just security measures for the sake of telling those hysterical people in the public that they're doing something.
7 comments:
yeah, when I saw the thing this morning about the "random" bag searches on the NYC subways, my first thought was that the terrorists are indeed winning - if their objective was to show how moronic our responses would be. ridiculous.
I dunno. I have to side with Paul on this one. Since I live in a "city" that doesn't even have any mass transit system, my opinion might not be founded in real experience, though.
While we all think it's a pain in the ass to be randomly searched at the airport, and to have to remove our shoes, etc, it's part of a Hobbesian social contract that I think we're all willing to engage in.
The same applies to the subway random bag searches. Yeah, it's going to slow things up a little bit. It's going to cause delay and whatnot. Still, though, I would feel better knowing that they're at least trying to thwart bad guys.
That Cunning Realist post is great. Very well written. I especially liked this anonymous comment: "Recommendations about what to do? Why do politicans and civil servant think that they need to justify their jobs by finding something "to do"?" It's like Helen Lovejoy in the Simpsons screaming out, "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" People get hysterical and demand that something be done. I'm saying that doing something efficient is what's needed, not just putting measures in place that don't solve or deter the problem. All bag checks is doing is satisfying government official's job requirements. Now they can say that they "did something about it."
If bag checks that hold up the efficiency of daily public transportation use is worth it to prevent one bomb attack, what else in our daily lives is worth giving up to prevent deaths? Would you be willing to inventory everything you have, down to the amount of money in your wallets, every time you leave and enter your workplace to prevent office theft (a big problem in my office)? Would you be willing to have a governor put on your car so that you can't go above the speed limit, thereby preventing a number of automobile accident deaths?
Just because something might decrease the likelihood of accidents and death does not make it the right thing to do. At a certain point, we have to go on living our lives. If you're worried about subway bombs, don't live in a city where you have to take the subway.
What would I do? More armed guards in the station is about the only thing that we can do. Otherwise, accept that the subways, as a place where people congregate in densely packed groups are going to be targets for bombers. Putting ineffective measures in place just to placate the hysterical people who need to see that something is done is not the way to go about it.
On another note, there's also this bit in the Post article:
"Federal agents and police officials urged citizens to look for suspicious behavior on the area's Metro and rail systems -- and if necessary, to take action themselves.
"If there's no police officer around and someone is sitting there, sweating and riffling through a backpack, someone needs to speak up loudly. They need to say, 'You're making me nervous,' " said James M. Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Washington office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Citizens have got to look up, they've got to notice and they've got to be alert.""
Seems like a good thing to suggest, but how long until there's a fight or a panicked mob because someone "looks suspicious".
Hey, I never claimed to have smart pants - all's I'm saying is that the "random" bag search thing seems stupidly reactionary - I can picture it now: after the stuff in London happened yesterday, everyone was sitting around a big table trying to come up with the "bestest idea" to stop the terrorists from doing the same thing here, and random bag searches won out because nobody had a better plan. These people are supposed to be experts, and this is the best they came up with? Oh, and not to mention, what happened to go on with your lives as normal and all that? How about the notion that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them at home. So much for that. The same folks who came up with those ideas came up with the random bag search idea, and so it seems to me that our officials obviously have no frickin' clue what they are doing when it comes to fighting terrorism. They just seem to be really into the "throw it the wall and see what sticks approach"...not very comforting.
And no, I don't have a much better idea (though I think they should either check everyone, or don't check anyone), but I'm not the one with the expertise in these sorts of things...but I have a pretty good sense that this is a stupid idea.
And yeah, I give tons of praise to the people on the ground who have to do the searches - both for the risk involved, and because they have to work for such morons.
I think the answer is really obvious: they should just put up signs in subway/metro stations that say "NO TERRORISTS ALLOWED."
I think the answer is clear: make everyone ride the subway naked.
As for the comment about citizens speaking up, back in our student days in London I remember people on the bus/tube saying something if we placed a backpack on another seat or somewhere other than immediately next to us. And that was when the IRA was the only thing they had to worry about.
Post a Comment