Boldly Going Nowhere
Bret Burquest

Junk Science

Posted Saturday, November 22, 2014, at 2:06 PM
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The problem Bret as I'm certain you're aware is that "Climate Change" is actually true Ancient Greek *Geologists "knew" what ended the Cretaceous and recognized Ice Ages - always has been and will continue to be until planet Earth inevitably winds up an ice-ball or scattered gas/plasma - *Common Thermodynamics Law *Knowledge.

    That was until - Gore got his arse handed to him via the Supremes ... the Court not Diana Ross & then found himself so inconvenienced as to need another job *not [cough cough] involving Politics he Inconvenient Truthed "all" the rest of us.

    (Sometimes Bret ... sometimes I'm inclined more to that Illuminati and Bilderberg Society stuff than at other times .. not meaning understand I could be the one "off the nut" as they say .. for instance long ago I experienced classrooms practicing "Duck & Cover" followed by talks from the teacher describing how "We here in the US are superior because of our Liberties while children in the USSR are indoctrinated to Snitch on everybody and anybody including even, their very own parents.

    Soviet Law Enforcement guys even going so far as to incite individuals in the community - sometimes even handing out *tools - in order to create the justification for "the system's" very existence.

    Here we don't do that.")

    That was generally, true enough until *we figured out "scaring people was good for business." Thus we have the Kabuki Theater *Security System* and the secondarily profitable PeeCee "Global Warming Business."


    Apologies for the tangent.

    But. Should you Bret ever query/post on what I labelled "Kabuki" prepare for an even longer comment. [For convenience];


    (I don't have access to the company's servers thus, can't access who - anything actually - might read the link. I can say, whoever's stuff is far more secure than even, logging onto AWM to comment.)


    Whew!!! I'm 'virtually' perspiring at this point so I'll cut it short Bret - had intended providing links to two sites where "for whatever reason" the name Bret Burquest appears on the blog's sidebar.

    In this instance for whatever reason below the titled, Loquacious Observers.

    At the time I'm given to understand, whoever recommended your placement Bret, considered it "Truth In Advertising."


    -- Posted by HDucker on Sat, Nov 22, 2014, at 8:46 PM
  • okay okay okay - I admit to "some degree" of wrong-doing in the past ... long ago (though pictures exist she claims still "never happened"

    and since the husband's now an elected ... yada yada yada etc etc - well ...

    "We certainly cannot have that!"

    "Having ANYBODY on YOUR word (... well Salem Citizens that shouldn't be too hard to figure out ...) enter ANYTHING (yada yada yada) on OUR dimes ... HECK! We'll have the Sheriff arrest you!"

    (Not saying that possibility is not an impossibility ... just that et ceteras have begat et ceteras ... it's "complicated" you below 40 year-olds realizing your "immediately relateds" were, if not below a 40 year old could've possibly been a *gasp* teenager.)


    "The Danger of Security Theater"

    STRATFOR - Scott Stewart


    This force is, of course, security theater -- theater that is intended to abate, rather than create, hysteria. But as the name suggests, this purportedly secure facade constructed of smoke and mirrors is no more universally effective than terrorism is universally dangerous. Both terrorist attacks and security measures are real, but neither is as significant or substantial as the public is led to believe.

    The Transportation Security Administration, for example, was created in the wake of 9/11 and charged with preventing similar attacks. Following the shoe bombing attempt in December 2001, aviation security authorities enacted measures requiring passengers to remove their shoes for screening. This change in procedure caused terrorist planners to switch to alternative methods of concealing explosives, such as liquids or underwear, to smuggle them onboard aircraft. Consequently, after the 2006 discovery of a plot to smuggle explosives disguised as liquids aboard aircraft, authorities limited the amount of liquids travelers could take in their carry-on luggage. Finally, in response to the failed attempt to detonate a bomb hidden in underwear in December 2009, the Transportation Security Administration began to employ full-body scanners at airports. Indeed, aviation security has a long history of being a reactionary arms race, and I see no end to this pattern.

    In truth, there is only so much that aviation security authorities can do to prevent explosives from being brought onboard an aircraft so long as passengers and luggage are permitted onboard and attackers are willing to die. But because of the hysteria caused by incidents like the failed shoe and underwear bombings -- and the economic implications of such panic -- authorities feel compelled to do something to reassure and calm the traveling public, even if other smuggling tactics can circumvent those measures.


    The ILLUSION of Safety

    Security theater is not restricted to the domain of aviation security; it is much more widespread. The typical corporate office building, for example, is "secured" by access control devices, badge readers and closed-circuit television cameras. Such measures are highly visible and help prevent low-level intrusions, but they do very little to protect facilities from clever and sophisticated criminals, brute force attacks, or perhaps most significantly, insider threats. During my career I have seen many cases of expensive access control systems being rendered useless by people propping doors open with trash cans, failing to check the identifications of people tailgating in the door behind them, or simply refusing to lock doors for the sake of convenience. In many cases, the presence of access control devices and cameras can actually create a false sense of security, a psychological crutch that can be dangerous if people assume they are safe, fail to practice good situational awareness and even go into denial at the first sign of a criminal or terrorist attack, all because they don't think such an attack could happen at their "secure" location. This attitude often proves fatal when it causes people to ignore warning signs or go into shock and freeze.

    Training can also contribute to a false sense of security. Safety training can be extremely helpful and effective, but if it is not done correctly (or sufficiently) it can lead to overconfidence and dramatic failure. When I was in high school, a kid who had taken a few Kung Fu classes became unduly cocky and was taken out with one punch by an experienced street fighter. Throughout my career as a diplomatic security special agent and corporate security manager, I have encountered many people who have received a little training and have begun to think entirely too highly of their capabilities. Closely related are the security hucksters, or self-described "security experts" who heavily self-promote their expertise for financial gain. Yet despite the multitude of initials they like to include behind their names, these hucksters have little idea of what they are doing in the real world. Whenever I encounter such people, I think of that Kung Fu kid, and of how these poorly trained charlatans are setting themselves (and their clients) up for a similar type of spectacular failure.


    In Touch With Reality Security

    So what, then, is the antidote for security theater? It starts with SOBER ASSESSMENT. Can the threat be defeated, or is it something that can only be contained, avoided or abated? The next step is to SHARE that rational assessment with the people you are seeking to protect. Education is an important element of effective security, and I have found that if security managers and government officials are open with their people, and explain the threat they are trying to protect against in a candid and rational manner, most people will cooperate with security programs, especially if the programs are logical and designed to protect against the threat that has been defined.

    So what, then, is the antidote for security theater? It starts with a sober assessment of threats. Security professionals MUST UNDERSTAND that the people they are trying to keep safe are really the best line of defense against security threats of all kinds. The protected population has many more eyes than the security staff, even in companies that employ widespread video surveillance. If people ARE TREATED AS ADULTS they can become a critical part of the solution.

    While the protected people can be a great security asset, they can also become cynical and jaded if they are alienated by security personnel. NOTHING pushes people away faster than hyped-up, melodramatic security theater. By making theatrical and unreasonable security claims and demands, you can lose the trust and respect of the people you are trying to protect. And as a security professional, it is extremely hard to regain a person's -- or a population's -- trust and respect once you have lost it.


    And that's not me HD attempting the obvious et cetera et cetera & so forth (True, I omitted some and [hopefully obviously] capitalized but any y'all has arguments, take 'em up with the Austin Company HQ.)

    -- Posted by HDucker on Sun, Nov 23, 2014, at 1:25 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: