BREATHE!

I’l come at it with some idea of a ’security’ viewpoint as I have worked in the area of linking physical security and virtual security together for a Fortune 125 multinational company. We’ve dealt with cameras, motion detection, intelligent facial recognition, the whole shooting match… none of it really works all that great. We also had security guards, an intelligence group and an executive protection branch to ensure the protection of our staff (the "grunts" of the organization) and leaders (the folks with three letter titles beginning with "C").

(NOTE: I originally had a longer post written, this is the edit)

You’re trying to protect an asset in the cheapest and yet most efficient and complete way possible. You have to look at the size and value of the asset. For say the POTUS, that’s why you have your extensive motorcade, high value, small size, high profile.. thus a lot of resources expended. For Union Station, medium value (transportation), large size (a lot to have to damage to have any real effect), and low profile (it’s a passenger train station that’s above ground, alternative methods to compensate for it’s loss are available).

Given that value proposition, you are protecting the asset with the lowest cost per performance technology you can get… namely people. To lower the cost, the training is lax, and the detail (aka, number of people) is reduced. As your jurisdiction is split (Amtrak police, rent-a-cop [mall area], and D.C. Police or FPS for the streets and entrances), who covers what and what they can enforce is varied. This is only where I’d cut Union Station a break… and tying the rules [loitering, photography, littering, etc.], the coverage [actual security technologies], who pays for what to maintain [who pays the bills] together is difficult and hard to clarify. Any bad guys picking that building would have an easy time due to the perceived confusion, versus, say The Capitol, since that protection force is unified in many ways, and those folks know exactly what they are supposed to do and when they are supposed to do it… even if the public population that enters and exits those areas bear some resemblance, at times, to one another (tourists, visitors, patrons, etc.).

So, per the discussion on photography and how it relates to the security of the building… very low. The sensitive areas of the complex are not contained within the main area under consideration (main lobby, stores, etc.). If somebody was looking at the fuel depot, control room, etc… different story… as those are the high value assets. Saying that the photographers are doing recon is utter nonsense. Don’t draw attention to what methods you use to protect an asset (rent-a-cops), as those will be the first bypassed by potential attackers (which is another reason the TSA screenings at airports are BAD in all sorts of ways). Your most effective method of asset protection is deterrence, but it doesn’t need to be in your face to get the message across. There are many ways to say "go away" without making it hostile… this is where Union Station got it terribly wrong.

That advice would be better sent to the security guards at Union Station.

My God, prontovega, after watching the news story, how can you possibly wonder if people have asked security about their policy? The newsman did just that, and received no answer, as the security guard was trying to prevent an interview with Amtrak’s top national spokesman, wherein that spokesman was trying to explain that photography is allowed. Everyone’s jaw has dropped here except yours.

You seem to be searching for some good reason for security’s behavior. If you find it, won’t you tell them? Because they clearly don’t know what they’re doing. It’s a thoughtless reflex, it is "security theater" as Don aptly said.

"we were prepared for attacks on the freedom of our country" — Wrong. 14 months after the attacks, the chairman of the Senate Select Cmte on Intelligence said: "They [FBI] still don’t know where the terrorists are, how many are here, what their intentions are, what kind of support network they have." FOUR YEARS after the attacks: "failures are shocking. Four years after 9/11, it is a scandal" (former GOP Gov. Kean of NJ, chair of the 9/11 commission). SEVEN YEARS after: "Hospital ERs Unprepared for Attack" (ABC News).

I could have said all that with one word, of course: Katrina. But you seem to be of the "heck of a job" mindset, protovega.

I’m happy to tell you about myself, and that’s why I went on camera for the Fox piece.; this is Joel. I’m defending liberties that are in the Constitution, while you’re advocating trading them away, in defense of bad security measures. The contrast is clear.

And I’m happy to meet with LaSalle to discuss their security policies. One problem: even their personnel don’t know what they are, there’s no consistent training in accord with the real target (Amtrak), and aren’t always responsive.

I’d love to see smart security, instead of misdirected efforts. You know, the same thing Scott McClellan’s now saying about the Bush years?

If what you want me to do is reflect on the generally ephemeral nature of life in specific then I can do that with the best of them. I appreciate your service to this nation as a member of its military forces, much as I appreciate the contributions of my father and my brother, both of whom served in the US Navy as enlisted men.

Back to the issue at hand, though, you ask a question. What would I do if we were attacked again? Work tirelessly to rebuild. It is the only way to prove to the weak-minded bent on violence that we are truly a strong people. Curtailing freedoms like the practice of photography in public spaces seems silly and paranoid. Sacrificing liberty for false security seems to be what Franklin was talking about.

Compare that, on the other hand, to the tremendous number of legitimate tourists who make their way around the city and are interested in taking pictures of the things they see. Stopping and interrogating every single one of them – when we know, statistically, that almost everyone that gets stopped with be an innocent person with no ill desires – means diverting time from productive efforts. Real security, as opposed to security theater or ineffective security, requires making tradeoffs and apportioning efforts wisely.