This is kind of old news now, but I have been too busy to post in the last week or so.
The chaser “invasion” of the APEC security zone was funny but also extremely alarming.
The authorities applied “spin” to the issue, claiming that the security worked as the Chaser boys were arrested and that they placed themselves at risk of being shot by snipers.
In fact, as shown by the video below, it wasn’t until “Osama” got out of the car that they were challenged. And if they weren’t challenged by ground staff, why would snipers suddenly decide to open fire?
The fact is that once again a lot of money was spent and a great deal of public inconvenience caused in the name of security that was in effect “security theatre“.
Although it seems unlikely that the cars were close enough to a venue to actually kill or injur any APEC delegates, if the vans had been packed with explosives and detonated it would have killed & injured a number of police officers and created a serious embarassment for the Australian government.
The Chaser’s stunt was fairly simple impersonation attack and even if the police didn’t have time to examine the (obviously) fake security passes on the cars, procedures should have been in place to challenge any unexpected convoys. The movement of these VIP convoys through the city was obviously co-ordinated with the RTA traffic operations centre to ensure green lights; this means that even if they movements weren’t scheduled it should have been simple to notify the people “on the ground”.
The police would have had standing orders to either
- Stop any unexpected convoys
- or allow through unexpected convoys
Clearly option 1 may have resulted in potential inconvenience to a VIP, but is the more secure stance. It is what is known in IT security as a “default deny” policy. Option 2, “default permit” increases risks while reducing inconvenience.
Surely the same world leaders that decide we can’t take nail files on to an airplane would understand the need for a little inconvenience to protect their safety?