Laurie Essig

Federal Protective Agency ineffective, or is it?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

According to a Government Accountability Office report, you can fairly easily get past the security at federal buildings with all the materials you need to build an explosive device.  Better, you can then assemble that explosive device inside and walk around the building with it and apparently no one will bother you.  Why?  Because the guards are too busy napping or worrying about that bottle of water you're trying to sneak through. Federal Eye - GAO: Major Security Flaws at Federal Buildings. Security at the federal buildings is run by the Federal Protective Service, which, probably coincidentally, is a name taken on by one of the KGB's successors in Russia.  Of course, this would not be the effective government agency of a James Bond movie, but the bumbling and ineffective Keystone Kop-like agency of an absurdist samizdat novel. Even for those of us not going through security at federal buildings regularly, we are well aware of the Keystone Kop antics of the TSA at airports.  Okay, admittedly the TSA manages to confiscate about 13 million illicit items a year, but since most of those items are lighters and handcream in a 4 ounce bottle, such security is not terribly effective at things like finding weapons (Unless you count things like sewing scissors and Swiss Army knives which aren't terribly good for killing people anyway.  Think about how difficult cutting someone with a dull pocket knife would be.  Much easier to just snap their necks with your hands.  But I digress). Which leaves us with the question why?  Why are we spending billions of dollars a year for extremely ineffective security in our airports and federal buildings?  The answer has more to do with the KGB than you might think. Fear is a highly effective state to keep a population in.   People who are afraid of attacks at airports and federal buildings don't really have much time to question what the state is doing to "protect" us.  Clearly there is a threat, why else would they be taking my  hand cream from my suitcase?  Clearly there is a threat, why else would I have to go through this metal detector just to go into my local passport office? We ritualistically enact our vulnerability as a nation state and as individuals each and every time we go through one of these security check points.  In this way, we are reminded that we "need" protection.  Military invasions are justified.  Defense expenditures are reasonable.  Violations of civil liberties understandable. In other words, the function of federally-run security is not to keep weapons out as much as to keep us in.  In a state of constant and perpetual fear of attack and invasion. So the next time you get pulled out of line and told your child's sippy cup is suspicious, remember to feel vulnerable in the face of total security.

Federal Protective Agency ineffective, or is it?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

According to a Government Accountability Office report, you can fairly easily get past the security at federal buildings with all the materials you need to build an explosive device.  Better, you can then assemble that explosive device inside and walk around the building with it and apparently no one will bother you.  Why?  Because the guards are too busy napping or worrying about that bottle of water you're trying to sneak through. Federal Eye - GAO: Major Security Flaws at Federal Buildings. Security at the federal buildings is run by the Federal Protective Service, which, probably coincidentally, is a name taken on by one of the KGB's successors in Russia.  Of course, this would not be the effective government agency of a James Bond movie, but the bumbling and ineffective Keystone Kop-like agency of an absurdist samizdat novel. Even for those of us not going through security at federal buildings regularly, we are well aware of the Keystone Kop antics of the TSA at airports.  Okay, admittedly the TSA manages to confiscate about 13 million illicit items a year, but since most of those items are lighters and handcream in a 4 ounce bottle, such security is not terribly effective at things like finding weapons (Unless you count things like sewing scissors and Swiss Army knives which aren't terribly good for killing people anyway.  Think about how difficult cutting someone with a dull pocket knife would be.  Much easier to just snap their necks with your hands.  But I digress). Which leaves us with the question why?  Why are we spending billions of dollars a year for extremely ineffective security in our airports and federal buildings?  The answer has more to do with the KGB than you might think. Fear is a highly effective state to keep a population in.   People who are afraid of attacks at airports and federal buildings don't really have much time to question what the state is doing to "protect" us.  Clearly there is a threat, why else would they be taking my  hand cream from my suitcase?  Clearly there is a threat, why else would I have to go through this metal detector just to go into my local passport office? We ritualistically enact our vulnerability as a nation state and as individuals each and every time we go through one of these security check points.  In this way, we are reminded that we "need" protection.  Military invasions are justified.  Defense expenditures are reasonable.  Violations of civil liberties understandable. In other words, the function of federally-run security is not to keep weapons out as much as to keep us in.  In a state of constant and perpetual fear of attack and invasion. So the next time you get pulled out of line and told your child's sippy cup is suspicious, remember to feel vulnerable in the face of total security.