An image recently came to mind dating back to the London bombings... Searches at U.S. subway entrances. On television they appeared to be done professionally - and I'm discussing the issue of racial profiling just the searching methodology and not the selection.
I saw long lines of people snaking back just as they do at the airport as individuals were searched. Hello!!! Did anyone else see a problem here? We are dealing with individuals intent on injuring as many people as possible - remember the few affecting the many by affecting the few - and the crowd can just as easily be at the entrance as it can be in the tunnel. Granted the tunnel makes for greater problems, but for those that may be killed the issue is the same.
So now that I've griped about what was done - here's an alternative. Granted this is more costly but it defeats the attacker's goals and limits their potential success to a mere handful rather than everyone in line. Defense in depth is something we in the security field spout on about. Here is a prime example of its use.
Somewhere in the parking lot a considerable distance from the entrance is the first line of officers. They select those that they feel should be searched and accost those individuals - search their bags - and either place a seal on it or hand a tag on it. Then somewhat farther back towards the entrance but within eyeshot of the first line is the second line who repeat the same steps but select different individuals to search. One or two officers, and the line supervisor, would then monitor the approaching commuters to see if items are being passed back and forth to those who have been searched. There may be a third line and a fourth line if there is enough distance and need.
Why is this concept worthwhile? The number of persons nearby to the one being searched are at greatest risk. Reducing the number of persons that cluster together reduces the value of the target. Also, over distance a person or persons trying to avoid being searched will stand out much more so than simply evading one checkpoint. There are other benefits but we'll leave it at these.
Is it full-proof? Heck no! And I'm not arrogant enough to believe that any plan is, but I do believe in saving what you can while you can and spreading out the targets means a whole lot fewer people that will need saving after the fact. Manpower now, means less manpower during the response. Oh yah, private security folks can do this as well. That's right. Well trained security folks can do this job; especially if they are backed by a law enforcement team. So we can do it for less and we don't need to hire more and more LEO's to reach the short-term goal.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this...
Rob
/
No comments:
Post a Comment