Slashdot Mirror
Congress Suggests Moat, Electronic Fence To Protect White House
PolygamousRanchKid writes Acting Secret Service director Joseph Clancy on Wednesday faced a number of tough questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the fence jumper who made it deep into the White House. But along with the tough questions, Clancy fielded a couple eyebrow raising suggestions on how to better protect the president's home. "Would a moat, water six feet around, be kind of attractive and effective?" Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked with trepidation. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked: “Would you be in favor of removing the fence around the White House and having, maybe, a virtual or electronic fence around it?” Clancy liked the moat idea better than the electric fence. “My knee-jerk reaction to that would be no, sir,” he told Gohmert. “Partly because of the number of tourists that come up Pennsylvania Avenue and come up to that area.”
So you think summary execution is the appropriate punishment for simple trespass?
I get your point that congress should shut the fuck up and let the expert handle it. That session must have been like every engineering meeting I've been in where management suggests ways to "fix" a technical issue. Only this took place on the grandest scale.
/. stories that go "OBVIOUSLY this new thing won't work because they OBVIOUSLY didn't think of this OBVIOUS problem that I realized because I'm a genius and skimmed the summary". There's gotta be some syndrome that covers it....
Oh, and it also reminds me of posts to technical
I'm a little confused about what the problem is. Some loonie ran into your White House while Obama and his family weren't there. The guards arrested him instead of killing him.
This sounds surprisingly civilized for you lot.
Perhaps Congress could start by dissolving the enivronment that has caused so many people to want to do antisocial things
Between 2000 and now there have been 14 "intruders" at the White House. Only one of which actually broke into the building. These intruders include a toddler who squeezed through the fence and a couple who crashed a Sate dinner. That is an average of less than one per year who had antisocial intent. From a population of 360 million less than one per year is not many.
Seriously if the politicians are so afraid of "the masses" then maybe they should start actually representing those masses like they're supposed to.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Personal security everywhere has a few conflicting objectives.
- Protect the person from physical threats
- Do not appear intimidating to the general public
- React quickly to perceived threats
- Do not overreact to perceived threats
Sure you could put a concrete wall around the White House and shoot anyone who climbed over but that would be very bad.
This incident has been blown way out of proportion. Lets look at what really happened.
1. I guy jumps a fence.
2. He runs across the lawn. He was seen at this point and an alarm was triggered (the problem is that the alarm was muted for some reason)
3. He enters an unlocked door (Which would have been locked had the alarm sounded).
4. He runs past a startled security guard (The one who would have locked the door if the alarm had sounded).
5. He runs up the stairs and across a long room.
6. He is tackled by a counterassault agent.
The only people he encountered were security personnel and he did not damage anything and harmed no one.
Lets look at what contributed to the incident.
1. He was not shot as he had no visible weapons.
2. The door to remain unlocked because the alarm was muted. The article claims that is was muted on the orders of the Usher's office
3. The President was in the process of leaving the building. During movement security is concentrated around the president as that is when he is most vulnerable. That left the front lawn less protected as there was less there to protect.
How to fix the issue?
1. Never mute the alarms
2. Connect the front door lock to the alarm so it locks when the alarm goes off.
Those are simple solutions to a small problem.
Mr Gonzalez is a Iraq War veteran with mental health issue. Though he had a knife on him he never brandished it and no one knew of it's existence until he was arrested. What do you think the comments would have been if it turned out that an unarmed Iraq War veteran with PTSD was shot dead while trying to enter the White House? So the Secret Service has to choose between being damned for letting someone into an an empty area of the White House or damned for shooting an unarmed Iraq War veteran with PTSD. You choose.
I love this quote from this article;
“I worry about her whole approach,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who is the chairman of a subcommittee that on Monday scheduled a hearing on the incident for next week. “I do question the director’s leadership. This is a place where we can never, ever make a mistake.”
This just shows how little Representative Jason Chaffetz actually knows about personal security. Security Agents are human and will make mistakes. Security systems are designed to take that into consideration by designing security in layers. One or more layers may be breached due to mistakes but unless the person being secured is harmed then the system worked. Lets look at what happened.
1. He climbed the fence. While a security layer it is designed to deter entry not prevent entry. Layer worked as designed.
2. He ran across the lawn and was seen by a security agent who sounded the alarm. Security layer worked as designed.
3. He opened the door. Layer failed due to alarm being muted.
4. He ran past startled security guard. Layer failed due to alarm being muted.
5. He ran up some stairs and was tackled by counter assault agent. Security layer successful.
There were probably a few more security layers between that point and the President. The only mistakes I see are the alarm being muted and the door not being automatically locked by the alarm. Would you rather have snipers shooting anyone who climbs over the fence?
So in your mind, the relationship between the Secret Service and the general public should be modeled on how the US military responds to an invading army?
Sounds good to me. Why continue with the illusion that American government is "of the people, by the people, for the people." It's not. Why continue the illusion it is?