Slashdot Mirror


What Examples of Security Theater Have You Encountered?

swillden writes "Everyone who pays any attention at all to security, both computer security and 'meatspace' security, has heard the phrase Security Theater. For years I've paid close attention to security setups that I come in contact with, and tried to evaluate their real effectiveness vs their theatrical aspects. In the process I've found many examples of pure theater, but even more cases where the security was really a cover for another motive." swillden would like to know what you've encountered along these lines; read on for the rest of his question below. swillden continues: "Recently, a neighbor uncovered a good example. He and his wife attended a local semi-pro baseball game where security guards were checking all bags for weapons. Since his wife carries a small pistol in her purse, they were concerned that there would be a problem. They decided to try anyway, and see if her concealed weapon permit satisfied the policy. The guard looked at her gun, said nothing and passed them in, then stopped the man behind them because he had beer and snacks in his bag. Park rules prohibit outside food. It's clear what the 'security' check was really about: improving park food vending revenues.

So, what examples of pure security theater have you noticed? Even more interesting, what examples of security-as-excuse have you seen?"

18 of 1,114 comments (clear)

  1. Frist Posty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Airports... Need I say more?

  2. The Iraq theater by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No trolling intended, but the war in Iraq now is the biggest piece of security theater on the planet. It does not make the US safer ( indeed it probably does the reverse ) but it does give certain people benefits. Chaney and friends make millions on no-bid contracts, and neocons get to implement policies that in more normal conditions would not be tolerated by the public.

    1. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      See, the thing is that there weren't insurgents in Iraq before the US got there.

    2. Re:The Iraq theater by MrMr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard
      Insurging against you in their own backyard?

      You're not strange, your colonialism is of all ages.

    3. Re:The Iraq theater by dolphino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but see, you don't know that (the only ones who have proposed that are the experts over at CNN).

      During my time spent in the middle east (all of which took place before 9/11) I saw... drumroll please... people who wanted to kill Americans. WHAT? DURING CLINTON?? Yes. We are not the 'cause' of these insurgents, and no matter how much you hate Bush for whatever you think it is he has done, or how much you want to blame him for the problems he inherited (from, IMO, the dem president that preceded him), he didn't make them either.

      The very boring and undramatic truth of the matter is, there are always people who will capitalize on the loss or misgivings of a group of people, and people of the Middle East happen to be the latest target. Arafat did it with the PLO (which has NOTHING to do with liberating Palestinians, and has everything with creating a power base), and the same thing is happening now around Iraq.

      So about "the sure thing is, there weren't insurgents": this rhetoric may work on your bleeding heart girlfriend, and probably works on many here on Slashdot, but don't try flinging that nonsense around vets, govt employees, or anyone else who has actually tried to DO something about these issues. It may sell books or commercial time on news channels, but it doesn't make any sense.

      Just my 2c

    4. Re:The Iraq theater by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Had a friend that grew up in Ireland. He once mentioned, not long after the war started against Iraq, that in the 80's, a couple Brittish soldiers were at a security checkpoint in northern Ireland They shot up a car, that had a family in it. He mentioned that that one incident, in that one town, caused a huge number of people to join the IRA, and fight against Brittan. It took a good 10 years for things to calm back down.

      Here were people that hated a country, and wanted it to die and suffer, but they just said that all the time. One wrong action, and those people actually started taking up arms, bombings, etc. There is a big difference between wanting American's killed, and actually trying to kill Americans. He wondered how many people we moved from Haters to Terrorists in Iraq.

      Think about it for a minute. You may hate a person you don't like, and wish that they were dead. How much would it take to push you to the point that you actually murder them?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Person who does not like the US != insurgent.

      There were, in fact, people in the Middle East who really dislike America. Heck, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if that weren't the case.

      However, you have to understand that this is at least in part due to American action. Our most egregious action was probably propping up the Shah in Iran. America has a history of using both deceit and pure muscle to get its way in the Middle East, and that has created a lot of enemies. Enemies that were there prior to Iraq.

      Our invasion in Iraq certainly didn't help things. It flared up old angers that had, in some areas, begun to die out. It brought our men within striking range. It shouldn't be any kind of surprise that this situation creates insurgents. Our invasion of Iraq strengthens the political position of our enemies; their claims about America seem to be confirmed, and it helps stokes the fears that cause people to flock to such causes.

      You have to look at this historically. People in the ME don't hate the US because of our freedom. They hate the US because of how we've treated them in the past.

      (It is, of course, more complicated than that, but this is a Slashdot comment.)

    6. Re:The Iraq theater by stonemetal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have just proved his point. Before we went over there and started killing them they were sitting around saying we hate americans. How many americans had they killed? A big fat zero. How many have they killed since we showed up and stuck our nose where it doesn't belong? About 6K last I checked.

      That is the thing, it doesn't matter if the PLO is Arafat's power base, he isn't a US citizen so the US gov should stay out of his business. If we stop giving them a reason to hate us( such as randomly showing up with guns and shooting at them with out provocation, as we are doing now) then that power base will fall apart. He can't goad people forever with the old evil american line if the evil americans never manifest themselves.

    7. Re:The Iraq theater by mrogers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hussein and Hitler did about the same things, both invaded other countries, both killed their own citizens, etc.

      Saddam Hussein had American support when he killed his own people and invaded Iran, because America's policy was to maintain the balance of power between Iraq and Iran. He retained American support until he invaded Kuwait, which would have upset the balance of power. All that stuff about Iraqi troops unplugging Kuwaiti baby incubators was just propaganda - it might have been true or it might not, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the Gulf War.

      America has been quite happy to support dictatorships (Iraq and Chile in the 1980s; Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and many others in the present), to overthrow democratic governments (Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in the 1980s), to look the other way when its allies invaded other countries (Israel in 1967, Indonesia in 1975, Iraq in 1980), and even to invade other countries itself (Cuba in 1961, Cambodia in 1970, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Haiti in 1994, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003). To pretend that American foreign policy is based on how well other governments treat their neighbours and citizens is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

    8. Re:The Iraq theater by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hussein was a bad man, Hitler was a bad man, the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries). I'm one of those people, could you please explain what's funny about this? Logically speaking, this would only be consistent if the two men were equivalent threats and equally evil, and the response to each was the same.

      Hitler was in charge of a major European power. By the time he started taking over other countries, he had amassed a fairly powerful, modern army, which was able to rival the best his opponents could muster.

      Hussein was in charge of a crappy piece of desert in a place where all the good weapons are imported from other countries. Even at the height of its power in 1991, the Iraqi Army was powerless to even slow down the US Army and its friends. The kill ratio was something like a thousand to one. After the army was essentially destroyed in 1991, the sanctions imposed on the country never let it recover. The Iraqi Army in 2003 was but a shadow of its former self, and the US Army smashed it flat in about three weeks.

      The best time to have stopped Hitler was Czechoslovakia. He took over that country, not by force of arms, but by diplomacy. The Allied powers were so afraid of war that they just let him have it. Czechoslovakia had a good, modern army and had excellent defenses prepared against Germany, but their political will to resist collapsed after France and the UK abandoned them and basically threw them to the wolves. If they had simply not abandoned Czechoslovakia, much would have turned out differently.

      The best time to stop Hussein was... well, by the time we invaded, he was not a credible threat against any of his neighbors, and the invasion didn't stop him from taking any of them over because he wasn't going to anyway.

      Hussein was no threat. It was known that he was no threat before the invasion. He may well have been as evil as Hitler, but he was never going to command anything remotely close to the military power possessed by Nazi Germany.

      Given the above, I see absolutely no inconsistency in a position which holds that Hitler should have been stopped much earlier and Iraq should have been left alone.
      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  3. Apartment Accepting Packages by sgtron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 2001 I was living in an apartment complex in a North Dallas suburb. If you got a package that wouldn't fit in those teeny-tiny mailboxes then the mail man would drop off the package at the apartment complex office and you could pick it up in normal office hours.

    After September 11th, the apartment management sent out a memo to all residents that because of the heightened state of terrorism awareness the office would no longer allow packages to be held there for the residents.

    Of course my first thought was they were just tired of dealing with the packages and saw this as a convenient excuse to stop holding packages for people.

    --
    No todo lo que es oro brilla
  4. Nice Article by dunezone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article fails to talk about security as a deterrent.

    The RFID bracelets on an infant can give comfort to the parents but its more of a deterrent then anything. Sure the hospital can tell the parents that their child is protected. But the hospital is not protecting the child as much as its protecting itself. For example:

    A guard that is in the bank is not there to stop a bank from being robbed. He deters people from committing the crime itself. In a robbery situation the guard himself is useless because the individual or individuals robbing a bank would take him out first. But in most bank robberies, the criminals are going to go after a bank without a guard anyway.

    A mall guard doesn't stop people from stealing, he creates the presence of being watched, therefor deterring people from stealing.

    Same goes with cameras in stores. Most of the time no one is monitoring the cameras and if anything their used to watch employees over customers. But their deterring employees from doing anything unethical or illegal and they deter people from stealing.

    In my opinion the idea of security theater and feeling safe is crap. You might as well spend the time and effort to know your safe then make it seem like you feel like your safe.

  5. The entire war on drugs by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's left to say? It's pretty clear that drugs are more dangerous when they're only available in the unregulated black market than in a regulated legal market. Criminalizing the use of drugs only hurts drug users more, yet it's done in the name of safety.

    What's worst is that we've been fighting this war for decades, no end is in sight, we've spent more money and lost more freedoms fighting it than we have in Iraq. And still, no one in power has the balls to speak out against this.

    We live in a sick, sad world. People who would meet the non-violent act of drug use with the violent acts of arrest and imprisonment are themselves violent criminals. Yet in this society they are deemed good citizens.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  6. My fave by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...is the one we've all seen in the airport: confiscation of bottled water. Every time a TSA guy finds your bottle of Dasani, he pours the suspected explosive in the trash. His very first good catch will be his last...

    rj

    1. Re:My fave by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The put all the possible liquid expolosives together in the same trash bin beside the security station in the middle of the crowed airport....

  7. Re:On the web side of things by Chapter80 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Slightly off topic, but your story reminds me of software I was involved with.

    We created a delete function, and kept getting reports that the customer accidentally deleted records. (And we had no undelete function.) So we added a "Are you sure?" dialog.

    The incidents of accidental deletion did not go down.

    So we added text "This cannot be undone. Continue?" and still the incidents did not go down (People just randomly click OK.)

    Finally we changed it to "Please key in 'irreversible' to continue with the deletion." This solved the problem.

  8. WOD == price support by mkcmkc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The purpose of the War on Drugs is to support the price of illegal drugs. If these drugs were legalized, the price would instantly collapse, and lot of powerful people would be very upset. (credit to Doonesbury or Outland (?) for pointing this out)

    It also helps politicians pander to ignorant members of the right.

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  9. Re:On the web side of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the hell would you have a button that actually says "OK" on it? That's poor design, because you should know that people always click OK. A better design would be to have buttons that say "Delete" and "Cancel", with the Cancel button selected by default. Typing the phrase was a good alternate solution to eventually arrive at, though.