One of my pet peeves these days is the pointless nature of most 'security' procedures or efforts that are seen pretty much everywhere one goes. The biggest thing that gets me are the 'security' folks that look through a bag when going to some place like Busch Gardens or Disney. When asked why, they state that they are checking for weapons, but they have no supporting reason when asked why they do not check people as they go in. Unless a gun barrel is sticking out of someone's baggy pants, they would have no clue as to what anyone is carrying. So much focus is placed on absurd 'risks' when there are clearly so many way to produce chaos. Unless you're Tyler Durden or some media-whore terrorist, then why focus on blowing up a building when targets are so much easier? Some security guy had a contest, as a means of promoting his book, in the month of April to come up with the
best movie plot terrorist threat. He pointed out five different tendencies people have to exaggerate risks: to believe that something is more risky than it actually is.
- People exaggerate spectacular but rare risks and downplay common risks.
- People have trouble estimating risks for anything not exactly like their normal situation.
- Personified risks are perceived to be greater than anonymous risks.
- People underestimate risks they willingly take and overestimate risks in situations they can't control.
- People overestimate risks that are being talked about and remain an object of public scrutiny.
Something as simple as having 20 guys coordinate the throwing of firebombs out a car window when the mid-west forests are at their most dry point and would cause more damage than anything from 9-11. It wouldn't even be a new idea since the Japanese even sent
fire balloons in WWII to as a mainland attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment