Security at Epcot

[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.

 

[joejccva71]

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

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.

 

[_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.

 

[joejccva71]

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

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.

 

[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.)

 

[joejccva71]

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?

I mean if they had a security check before you go on the monorail and then after you got off where unless you're Superman or Doctor Strange's brother where you could pass objects through a wall, then yes I would deem that slightly excessive. But on that SAME NOTE, I would still be fine with it because things can slip by bag checks. Security guards are humans and they make mistakes, so having that double check again would add some redundancy.

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.)

I served 10 years as an EOD Tech Team Lead for the Air Force and then another 2 years in the reserves. NOTHING surprises me anymore. I welcome ALL and ANY security to keep people safe. I honestly don't really care how redundant it is or not unless someone is checking you every time you walk 10 feet.

 

[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.

 

[celluloid]

The easiest way to get out of the Epcot Security check after already going through the TTC is merely leap out if the monorail doors as they conveniently open over the park.

 

[MAGICFLOP]

I don't really give a rats behind that you're inconvenienced by waiting an extra 30 minutes. I'd rather the parks be safe. If you don't like it, then go to Maui instead.

What are you willing to give up for a false sense of security? Would you been willing to submit to intense scrutiny ? Perhaps if Disney required a security inspection of your home, you know just know who is really coming into the parks? Perhaps submit a complete online trail of where you go on the net? Perhaps they can check if you have a gun permit? You just so that they can guarantee everyone's safety.

I know my examples are extreme, but my point is WDW has to be somewhere between walking into that park not even observed to intense 6 month pre investigation of all aspects of you life before you can enter.

So for you to rudely pelt someone for not subscribing to your interpretation of security needs is not fair. Maybe your OK with the 6 month intrusive check, but I draw the line.

As for myself, I recognize the fact that I am the first and primary security / defense for my family, no matter where I am. Anyone who off loads their security to others are at societies mercy. Sadly the kids at Parkland found that out with deputies in ear shot of gun fire..

 

[PeakSeason]

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.)

We are planning a monorail resort, pub crawl of sorts, on our next trip. We're staying at Boardwalk, thought we'd enter through International Gateway, walk to the front of Epcot, board the monorail to TTC, then take the resort monorail stopping at Polynesian, Grand Floridian, and Contemporary, each for about an hour and a half. We would probably take a cab at the end of the night. Does this plan mean we go through bag check and security 3 times? or is it even more than that?

 

[larryz]

Does this plan mean we go through bag check and security 3 times? or is it even more than that?

Nothing makes security more fun than going thru it snockered.

 

[joejccva71]

What are you willing to give up for a false sense of security? Would you been willing to submit to intense scrutiny ? Perhaps if Disney required a security inspection of your home, you know just know who is really coming into the parks? Perhaps submit a complete online trail of where you go on the net? Perhaps they can check if you have a gun permit? You just so that they can guarantee everyone's safety.

I know my examples are extreme, but my point is WDW has to be somewhere between walking into that park not even observed to intense 6 month pre investigation of all aspects of you life before you can enter.

So for you to rudely pelt someone for not subscribing to your interpretation of security needs is not fair. Maybe your OK with the 6 month intrusive check, but I draw the line.

As for myself, I recognize the fact that I am the first and primary security / defense for my family, no matter where I am. Anyone who off loads their security to others are at societies mercy. Sadly the kids at Parkland found that out with deputies in ear shot of gun fire..

1. Your examples are very extreme.

2. 6 month intrusive check? Are you an extremist? We're talking about an extra bag check lol. 30 minutes or so.

3. Yes I take issue with people that are whining about 30 more minutes. I would rather have that and get that extra bag check in case the first guy missed something. However in the other posters example, he hated all security from what I read.

4. So you're the first and primary security for your family but what about the 10's of 1000's of other people that are going to the parks? Since you're talking about "offloading security", who's going to check all these other people to see if they have devices or weapons on them? I'm glad you think that you only need to police yourself and your family regarding security, but I don't know you, and when you go into a park with a backpack, I want you checked. Plain and simple.

 

[_caleb]

I’m disappointed in this discussion. It’s clear to me that some of you don’t like the bag checks. But other than complaining about infringement and posturing as defenders, I don’t understand the thinking. I’m really trying here, but nobody seems interested in explaining.

As far as I can tell, some folks think the security checks are a necessary inconvenience. It’s part of what Disney does in their attempts to mitigate threats to guests in the park.

On the other side are those who clearly don’t think Disney should have bag checks at all. That argument, as far as I can tell, focused on:

• What we have to give up (still not sure: maybe time? Privacy?)
• The failure rate of bag checks
• It’s all for show (though all security has some element of “show”)

But this side doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the bag checks are only one part of the effort. They are combined with other things (cameras, plainclothes guards, and possibly laser beams).

I also haven’t seen any alternative ideas for what they’d prefer instead of bag checks. Anyone care to clarify for me?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m disappointed in this discussion. It’s clear to me that some of you don’t like the bag checks. But other than complaining about infringement and posturing as defenders, I don’t understand the thinking. I’m really trying here, but nobody seems interested in explaining.

As far as I can tell, some folks think the security checks are a necessary inconvenience. It’s part of what Disney does in their attempts to mitigate threats to guests in the park.

On the other side are those who clearly don’t think Disney should have bag checks at all. That argument, as far as I can tell, focused on:

• What we have to give up (still not sure: maybe time? Privacy?)
• The failure rate of bag checks
• It’s all for show (though all security has some element of “show”)

But this side doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the bag checks are only one part of the effort. They are combined with other things (cameras, plainclothes guards, and possibly laser beams).

I also haven’t seen any alternative ideas for what they’d prefer instead of bag checks. Anyone care to clarify for me?

Other means of security are not dependent on the bag checks. And how is success not important?

 

[correcaminos]

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.

You don't think it's annoying to have to be screened twice? Sorry but I do. It's more of security theater by doing this to begin with and having to do it twice? It's annoying and they really do *need* to fix this. The poor monorail resort people are getting hit with double checks and truly, it sucks.

Disney needs to get their act together with bag checks. As I said no where else I go that is equally as 'big of a target' is done so poorly.

I’m disappointed in this discussion. It’s clear to me that some of you don’t like the bag checks. But other than complaining about infringement and posturing as defenders, I don’t understand the thinking. I’m really trying here, but nobody seems interested in explaining.

As far as I can tell, some folks think the security checks are a necessary inconvenience. It’s part of what Disney does in their attempts to mitigate threats to guests in the park.

On the other side are those who clearly don’t think Disney should have bag checks at all. That argument, as far as I can tell, focused on:

• What we have to give up (still not sure: maybe time? Privacy?)
• The failure rate of bag checks
• It’s all for show (though all security has some element of “show”)

But this side doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the bag checks are only one part of the effort. They are combined with other things (cameras, plainclothes guards, and possibly laser beams).

I also haven’t seen any alternative ideas for what they’d prefer instead of bag checks. Anyone care to clarify for me?

If you read my posts, I said this type of security is awful. I fully acknowledge the real security beyond this dance is what keeps us safe. So yes, that side *does* acknowledge the real security.

I want a streamlined process. I want to get in and out like I do when I go to a concert, a fair, Universal... all of these locations do it and do it well. You either hand your bag to go through a scanner or as you walk through a metal detector, or they have significantly more checks so that as you hand your bag (always as you walk through the detector - not some stupid double line randomness that Disney does) they look quickly and you get it on the other side of the detector. Wait time for that is pretty much nothing. A minute or two at most. Not 10, not 20 and certainly not 30 minutes.

Disney needs more staff, more detectors and a lot more incentive to go bagless and have the staff to deal with it. Their way is a mess.

They also need to funnel the monorail riders into Epcot so they don't have to be checked *again* which is annoying as all get out.

 

[joejccva71]

You don't think it's annoying to have to be screened twice? Sorry but I do. It's more of security theater by doing this to begin with and having to do it twice? It's annoying and they really do *need* to fix this. The poor monorail resort people are getting hit with double checks and truly, it sucks.

Disney needs to get their act together with bag checks. As I said no where else I go that is equally as 'big of a target' is done so poorly.

No I don't think it's annoying to be screened twice. Adding redundancy in security is welcome in my book. It could be that I spent a better part of my life in the military dealing with threats like this so I'm all for it. It's just where you and I differ. I have seen first hand what happens to people when security can be slack or where things can get missed so no I don't think added redundancy is annoying, not when it comes to this.

 

[drizgirl]

No I don't think it's annoying to be screened twice. Adding redundancy in security is welcome in my book. It could be that I spent a better part of my life in the military dealing with threats like this so I'm all for it. It's just where you and I differ. I have seen first hand what happens to people when security can be slack or where things can get missed so no I don't think added redundancy is annoying, not when it comes to this.

If twice is good, then 3 times is better right? Why not 4?