Knott's Berry Farm adds metal detectors

Jeff said:
Fine, but that side seems to believe that doing nothing is just as good, which strikes me as ridiculous.

But no one is saying that. Take CP, which is the park I'm most familiar with, they have always had extremely effective in park police and survalience. The metal detectors provide very little extra value when you have something like that in place. The thing the checkpoints do best is cause frustration and congestion on the way into the park.

The way I see it, security is there to deal with two possible events. First is the occasional ahole who gets into an altercation because of certain circumstances. Second is a possible organized terror attack. Recently, in addition to the fine in park police, park officials decide to run security checkpoints at the gate. What value do these checkpoints actually add?

If it is to protect from the occasional ahole, those people have been around longer than I've been alive. The park police have historically done a fine job dealing with those people. What added value does a checkpoint give?

If it is to protect from an organized terror attack, do park officials think those people would actually buy tickets and carry their weapons into the park to stage an attack if checkpoints were not in place? Checkpoint or not, the way to do it is blast your way in at the gate and continue from there if just the massacre at the gate isn't enough. Once again, what value do checkpoints add in that scenario?

There was a fake bomb threat at CP last year where the idiot said bombs were placed around the perimeter fence. If that were real, what value would a checkpoint provide?

To those here in security, tell me what I'm missing if there is something more to it than what I've said?

The security industry sells their services and products just like any other industry. I still think these checkpoints are part knee jerk reaction to past terror events, part marketing to guests to give the illusion of security and part marketing by security providers to the parks selling them a bill of goods.

You're making strawman arguments, Pete. I could just as easily argue a hundred things that are deterred by the security you insist adds no value.

slithernoggin said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying amusement parks -- or zoos, or museums, or baseball stadiums or what have you -- should do nothing. Rather that the money spent on security theater should be spent on tracking actual threats.

Why do you think that the expenditures are mutually exclusive, or even the exclusive domain of the parks and not law enforcement? There's a lot more going on than I think anyone here really appreciates.

The thing the checkpoints do best is cause frustration and congestion on the way into the park.

You know who I never hear complaining about the measures? Non-enthusiasts. I go to Carowinds dozens of times a year and they've had these measures for a while. Never hear people complain.

I hear lots of enthusiasts complain, tho.

The park police have historically done a fine job dealing with those people. What added value does a checkpoint give?

I'd say ask the pulse shooters wife but you keep saying she's part of the media and that she's speculating.

Tekwardo said:

The park police have historically done a fine job dealing with those people. What added value does a checkpoint give?

I'd say ask the pulse shooters wife but you keep saying she's part of the media and that she's speculating.

Pulse Night Club had what, a couple of bouncers maybe? I'm taking about a fully bonded police department with the entire park under survalience and patrolled. CP has always had gate security, things were always watched but it was unobtrusive. I'm in no way suggesting to change that security. I'm arguing that adding metal detectors and glorified Walmart greeters to run those doesn't add value for security.

Outside of finding someone with a knife or gun, which was something people always had with them way before checkpoints and terrorists - that is where the police department inside the parks comes into play if need be, name one thing where a metal detector or wand adds value?

Amusement parks are outdoor venues with many acres of land. But it seems like the experts like to treat those venues the same as a much smaller and totally enclosed arena.

How does a police department find and stop 5 people who entered the park at different times, at differnent gate, each carrying a gun, and then all carrying out a shooting at 11:00? I do not see how CP's surveillance or police could prevent that from happening.

So you are talking about an organized terrorist attack. First, I think police survalience and profiling would have a good chance of noticing something​ was off by possible suspicious behavior. Second, if a terrorist attack is organized and a gate checkpoint is in place, another way would be found. Maybe wood or plastic knives, plastic explosives, etc. The 911 terrorists found a way in spite of TSA.

I'm not saying​ metal detectors can't find stuff, of course they can. But the small increase in security doesn't justify the inconvenience and mindset that I must be entering a dangerous place because they need metal detectors to keep bad things out.

It doesn't justify your inconvenience? Then stop going and stop complaining. Because this is one complaint that isn't going to change the outcome.

Like OTSRs.

An article that makes sense: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/04/metal_detectors.html

TSA was a response to the tragic events of 9/11, it wasn't in place at the time..

That said, I remain unconvinced that such security measures are anything else but "CYA security". TSA is demonstrably unable to catch contraband items in tests TSA is notified in advance will be happening, and has gotten progressively worse at passing those tests; and amusement parks, baseball stadiums, and so on don't have the technology that TSA does.

Tekwardo said:

Like OTSRs.

Until very recently, I'd have concurred with this portion. But next week, riding Revolution, I'll just smile.

Last I checked, TSA doesn't provide front gate security at parks. Their lack of ability has nothing to do with what parks do.

I'm still gonna side with the guy who works for a park and knows what he's talking about, as opposed to a couple few guys that simply don't like going thru metal detectors.

Tekwardo said:

Last I checked, TSA doesn't provide front gate security at parks. Their lack of ability has nothing to do with what parks do.

Sure it does. TSA screening uses superior technology that checks for more than just metal stuff, in addition to an X-ray of your belongings. I don't see how that's not vastly superior to a plain old "he's carrying car keys" machine.

And the TSA fails spectacularly, even when they know they're being tested. It would be fascinating to see how similar tests would play out at an amusement park fitted with metal detectors.

...as opposed to a couple few guys that simply don't like going thru metal detectors.

That's not the counter-argument that I see. Sure, those arguing against the process may not like said process, but that's not the main issue. The main issue seems to be both "is it really effective" and "what does the wide acceptance of this process say about us as a society"?

Tekwardo said:

Last I checked, TSA doesn't provide front gate security at parks. Their lack of ability has nothing to do with what parks do.

I'm still gonna side with the guy who works for a park and knows what he's talking about, as opposed to a couple few guys that simply don't like going thru metal detectors.

Did you read the article I linked too a few posts up? The guy is an internationally known security expert, author of 13 books, testified before Congress and has served on several government committees. The article the guy wrote does an excellent job explaining what "a few guys that simply don't like going thru metal detectors" have been saying. He explains why metal detectors are security theater and talks about CYA security and the reasons behind it.

The TSA is in place, regardless of how poorly they do, to avoid a plane becoming a weapon of mass destruction. That's not the point of front gate check points. My argument still stands.

The thing the checkpoints do best is cause frustration and congestion on the way into the park.

Say what you will but this quote sums up why so many enthusiasts (and barely, if any, nom enthusiasts) complain about it, under the guise of whether it is necessary or not.

Again, park employee who knows what he's talking about and has said reputation around here, that's who's argument I'm following. Not complainers who are frustrated at an additional 5 minute wait time

Did you read the article I linked too a few posts up? The guy is an internationally known security expert, author of 13 books, testified before Congress and has served on several government committees. The article the guy wrote does an excellent job explaining what "a few guys that simply don't like going thru metal detectors" have been saying. He explains why metal detectors are security theater and talks about CYA security and the reasons behind it.

Good for him! I'm not saying it is or isn't effective. You complain about being frustrated. A park employee who knows a thing or two says get used to them because, whether they work or they're just there as a CYA measure, they're not going away. It's the same argument as OTSRs. You don't like it. That's not going to change anything.

The discussion here isn't about the checkpoints going away or not, the discussion revolves around the validity of doing this and if they add anything to the safety of park goers (or so I thought). Schneier in the article explains very well why this is a joke and why it IS NOT going away anytime soon. No, I'm not boycotting parks over this. No, I'm not going to bother complaining to parks over this. Yes, I will be polite and pleasant to any of the people running the security checkpoint. But, that does not mean I think it is anything less than a joke and a manifestation of the fearful mindset running rampant in this country. And the annoying part is not inconvenience, it is inconvenience and wasted time on account of stupid decisions and policy.

Tekwardo said:

Say what you will but this quote sums up why so many enthusiasts (and barely, if any, nom enthusiasts) complain about it, under the guise of whether it is necessary or not.

No, I think that's just the argument you hear over the others, probably because it's easier for you to argue against.

It's not about what's easiest to argue against. Every time there's a news item the same people complain about how it's ineffectual, bla bla bla, when the overall real reason is because they feel it inconveniences them. THAT is the real argument. But it sounds less whiny when we argue about how its unnecessary according to a quote we found online.

And it's complaining ftom people who don't work at the park or understand why these policies are implemented.

And the whole argument is moot anywho. It's not going to change regardless.

If its moot then why continue to engage in it?

For the same reason they complain every time, to hear myself talk.