Security at Epcot

[wdisney9000]

And now the actual quote is “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

If I may ask, who or what made that quote any form of standard logic? And how does one "purchase temporary safety"?

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

If I may ask, who or what made that quote any form of standard logic? And how does one "purchase temporary safety"?

The attributable quote had to do with a political battle between the Assembly (basically Franklin) and the Governor over the issue of implementing a tax on land in order to fund defenses on the frontier due to the French and Indian War. Franklin's quote had more to do with the decision that faced the legislature between making the funds available for said defenses vs maintaining its right of self governance. Had nothing to do with personal freedoms - as everyone who recites it seems to think.

The safety would have been temporary as it only addressed what was needed during that war.

 

[_caleb]

If I may ask, who or what made that quote any form of standard logic? And how does one "purchase temporary safety"?

Here's a little bit about that quote.

@Astro_Digital , what are you concerned we're "giving up" in the name of security at Disney World. Are you referring to the privacy about what's in your bags? The time we spend waiting to pass through screening?

@Biggen, to say that security is a "dog and pony show" sounds very dismissive. Maybe you're overstating for the internet, but surely you can recognize the value of some degree of security screening of guests? Would you really prefer NO bag/person checks at the gates at all?

Of course people queuing to pass through security screening present a target for bad guys. This will always be the case at the perimeter of any security bubble, but it can be mitigated. This is why Disney needs to staff up and reduce the number of choke points. Guests should not have to wait 30 minutes (or more) to pass through screening.

 

[wdisney9000]

The attributable quote had to do with a political battle between the Assembly (basically Franklin) and the Governor over the issue of implementing a tax on land in order to fund defenses on the frontier due to the French and Indian War. Franklin's quote had more to do with the decision that faced the legislature between making the funds available for said defenses vs maintaining its right of self governance. Had nothing to do with personal freedoms - as everyone who recites it seems to think.

The safety would have been temporary as it only addressed what was needed during that war.

Ahhh, I was just confused because you said "and now" the actual quote is....

I thought by "now" you meant it was a current quote made by someone else. Thanks for the clarrification and apologies for the confusion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

@Biggen, to say that security is a "dog and pony show" sounds very dismissive. Maybe you're overstating for the internet, but surely you can recognize the value of some degree of security screening of guests? Would you really prefer NO bag/person checks at the gates at all?

We’re talking about a method of protection that is routinely circumvented in tests. What level of success is considered useful?

 

[_caleb]

@lazyboy97o, I take your point. But the value of security measures can be very difficult to measure. We never really know how many bad guys are deterred by visible security (as the Pulse shooter was), and it only takes a single security failure to miss something big. But we do know that Disney security screening has stopped people from bringing guns into the parks.

Yes, people can circumvent metal detectors. But that’s why the screening is only one part of Disney’s security. It’s the most visible (and maybe the easiest to defeat), but even the just-for-show parts serve a purpose.

 

[Biggen]

Here's a little bit about that quote.


@Biggen, to say that security is a "dog and pony show" sounds very dismissive. Maybe you're overstating for the internet, but surely you can recognize the value of some degree of security screening of guests? Would you really prefer NO bag/person checks at the gates at all?

I'm not overstating it. It is useless when you have a choke point at the front where THAT is the spot where something should happen if it was going to.

I'm fine with no security myself. There is no security at 99.999% of the places I visit on a daily basis. Probably the places you visit as well. To each their own... I"m also not going to complain about the lines or wait time to go through security either. It is just how it goes. No point of arguing about it as in today's 24/7/365 media coverage, if you aren't "appearing" to do something, the media will skewer you for it on the morning talk shows.

 

[larryz]

We’re talking about a method of protection that is routinely circumvented in tests. What level of success is considered useful?

Deterrence. Reference Mateen's decision to change targets after spotting police presence at Disney Springs...

 

[_caleb]

I'm not overstating it... I'm fine with no security myself. There is no security at 99.999% of the places I visit on a daily basis.

This is what I meant by "overstating." Surely you mean "no security screening" and not "no security." Because there is SOME layer of security at most of the places I visit on a daily basis. Cameras, guards, bollards, strategically-placed planters.

I promise I'm not trying to be argumentative or even to change your mind. I'm just curious about where you're coming from.

It sounds like we agree that "choke points" are very bad and present new targets while trying to mitigate others. But I really can't see how "no security" could be a good answer to this problem. Thanks for explaining your opinion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Deterrence. Reference Mateen's decision to change targets after spotting police presence at Disney Springs...

But not a bag check.

 

[_caleb]

But not a bag check.

But there are no bag checks at Disney Springs. If there had been, maybe THAT would have been the deterrent.

 

[larryz]

But not a bag check.

Bag check is another layer that would be "hard" to implement at Disney Springs. Just having the extra police being out and very visible saved lives at Disney Springs.

Let that sink in. Just the officers being there in uniform SAVED LIVES AT DISNEY SPRINGS.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But there are no bag checks at Disney Springs. If there had been, maybe THAT would have been the deterrent.

Or the bag check could have been dealt with like it was at LAX.

Bag check is another layer that would be "hard" to implement at Disney Springs. Just having the extra police being out and very visible saved lives at Disney Springs.

Let that sink in. Just the officers being there in uniform SAVED LIVES AT DISNEY SPRINGS.

The difficulty in implementing a bag check at Disney Springs is also part of what protected it. The design is open and allows people to move in many directions. It would be difficult to corner people in a place while maintaining cover from the police.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So am I understanding correctly that because you have this "choke point" that you're referring to, then they might as well not do any bag checks or security because it wouldn't happen inside the parks anyway?

I'm confused by your post.

It’s not just the choke point but also the very high failure rate of such checks.

 

[UncleMike101]

We’re talking about a method of protection that is routinely circumvented in tests. What level of success is considered useful?

I'm sure there are several layers of "Threat Interdiction" at WDW.
I've seen K-9's at Epcot's check point doing what they do best.
Sniffing for contraband, likely explosives.
If people look carefully they can spot numerous discrete cameras, all of which are feeding visuals to backstage monitor stations, all of which are connected by various communication devices to armed response Officers at several locations throughout the parks.
All in all the Disney Parks are a pretty safe place to be.

 

[_caleb]

@lazyboy97o, What is the rate of failure of bag checks at Disney World? You're aware that security screening is just one part of Disney's security? You keep bringing up failure of bag checks as though that's all that's being done.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hence the reason for this entire thread because they were doing double bag checks and people were up in arms about it. They were checking at the monorail going to Epcot and then again at the normal gate. Double the security to try to make people safer, but people still complain.

The double screening is not intentional or about making people safer.

@lazyboy97o, What is the rate of failure of bag checks at Disney World? You're aware that security screening is just one part of Disney's security? You keep bringing up failure of bag checks as though that's all that's being done.

I don’t have numbers for Walt Disney World but TSA fails their own tests more than 80% of the time.

 

[DisneyJeff]

Poor choice of words of my part. I didn't mean they did it intentionally, but it was happening and people went crazy. If you took the Monorail you ended up getting checked twice I believe. My thing is, it's not so much a bad thing as a little extra security is ok in my book.

So at what point would you say the security would be excessive? Right now if you take the monorail from the Poly to Epcot, you are screened twice, once when boarding the monorail at the resort then before going into Epcot. If the also had security checks when you change monorail at the TTC, is that OK with you? What if they had a security check at the exit of the monorail as well? So you would go through 4 security checks on the way to the park?

The original point about the thread was that Epcot is checking people who were already considered "safe". They were checked before getting on the monorail in the first place. These people should be separated from the "unchecked" people at Epcot and be allowed to go directly to the turnstiles. (Like how the MK is currently configured.)

 

[eliza61nyc]

I'm not overstating it. It is useless when you have a choke point at the front where THAT is the spot where something should happen if it was going to.

I'm fine with no security myself. There is no security at 99.999% of the places I visit on a daily basis. Probably the places you visit as well. To each their own... I"m also not going to complain about the lines or wait time to go through security either. It is just how it goes. No point of arguing about it as in today's 24/7/365 media coverage, if you aren't "appearing" to do something, the media will skewer you for it on the morning talk shows.

Do those 99% of the places you go hold 10s of 1000's of people?

I thought about this, my daily routine I go to work (40 people max in one place) to home (5) people, to gym, etc etc. Most people don't hang out daily in Disney size atmospheres and now most employees DO have security on the job.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

The screening process is only as good as the screener. Metal Detectors are only looking for what they are designed to look for. Other screening machines (such as at airports) leave it up to human intervention to decide if the content of a bag is potentially a threat. All of these are subject to error and are in no way foolproof. When it comes to Disney, or sporting events, or anything else that draws a large crowd - I think these extra layers act as much a deterrent as they do a last line of defense - regardless of their actual effectiveness in the purpose for which they are actually designed.

That being said, then you combine those with the camera's (which are all over the place), undercover presence, uniformed presence, employees that are trained (at least I hope they are trained) to report suspicious behavior, and regular guests who would probably report something out of the ordinary --- I think DS is relatively safe.

What none of us have any visibility with - are the steps Disney takes outside of those things visible to us. I assume - those measures are probably greater than any of us realize.