There are times when security fears and the measures they spawn take a debate too quickly into how instead of whether. Such an occasion is captured in Philip Kennicott’s Washington Post article, “Monument protection presents a monumental security issue.” (Available at http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fwp-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f11%2f07%2fAR2010110704572_mobile.xml&cid=578815&page=6) It may as well be called monumental protection without commensurate security.
The article presents a mad ramble and hodgepodge of ideas driven by little more than subjective, look-and-feel aesthetics. This is the how debate, i.e., how to defend something symbolic through measures like access tunnels that soon grow out of all proportion to their cost and object served. Nevertheless, it also raises, in muted falsetto, the oft-ignored option of closing public access to a viewing platform that has long since lost its allure and distinction. This is the whether debate, i.e., whether it still makes sense to keep some things accessible to the public at all costs. Historical context informs this debate. There was a time when climbing the Washington Monument from within afforded the tourist a commanding view from a height inaccessible to the average citizen. The age of skyscrapers has eclipsed this thrill, however. There was also a time when concerns of safety for tourists and accessibility for disabled persons would not factor into design of such attractions. Nor was it then conceivable that such platforms could serve as perches for snipers or targets for terrorists. Those times are gone.
The whether debate needs to be revisited before going too far into the how debate. Security is always a tradeoff, since total protection would mean zero access. Intelligently addressing questions of whether it makes sense to sustain a level of public access to the point of imposing draconian security measures is an excellent management and security discussion to have before allocating protective resources. It also recalls Robert Browning’s observation: A man in armor is his armor’s slave. In this case, over protection becomes self defeating.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe Now
AddThis
Nick Catrantzos + Tom Goff
- All Secure
- NICK CATRANTZOS is the lead author of the All Secure website and is the emeritus security director for a large public organization. He has also managed security aspects of corporate takeovers, response to international hostage situations, and finding and keeping secrets. He has been board certified in security management, licensed as a private investigator, and certified as an incident commander. He worked as a case officer for a discreet branch of public service. He protected stealth technology at Lockheed and, later, as a consulting security director for both Kroll and Control Risks, he assisted executives with workplace violence cases and with protecting VIPs and critical assets globally in volatile areas. Nick's partner, TOM GOFF, was a captain in the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve and has a law degree from the University of California at Davis. He is a former reporter for Fortune Magazine, was senior editor at New York Magazine and Esquire, and has provided crisis and communications counsel to senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed, ARCO, Microsoft, Nissan, and Sony Pictures.