I’m catching up after all of last week’s travel and saw a good post by Dave over at Matasano on Safety vs. Security. Dave basically states that although one operating system might have better security than another, it doesn’t really matter if it’s more of a target. Vista might be more inherently secure than OS X, but it doesn’t matter if you are less likely to be attacked on your Mac. At least until someone decides it’s time to change targets.
But what’s really interesting is that Dave’s post got me thinking on the whole concepts of safety and security. I realized that in the IT security world we tend to always correlate the two, but in the physical security world we know that safety and security are two totally separate issues, often at odds.
It’s an easy mistake to make; especially when the New Oxford American Dictionary defines security as: the state of being free from danger or threat.
To be honest, that’s not the definition I expected. A significant part of my job as a security professional has absolutely nothing to do with safety or “threats” in the sense most of you are probably thinking. Unless you consider protecting liquor revenue “safety”. For example:
- At some venues our searches were to reduce the overall volume of alcohol in the event. In other cases, it was to stop booze from coming in so people had to buy it inside.
- Stopping cameras and recording devices from coming in to a concert has nothing to do with safety.
- DRM reduces the security of your computer while failing to prevent piracy. It’s a tool to restrict how you use content, not to stop copying.
- Checking boarding passes at airport security reduces lines, but doesn’t improve security.
- While URL filtering does provide a little security against certain web-based attacks, it’s more typically deployed to keep employees from wasting time on corporate resources. A productivity issue, not a security one.
I can think of countless times in the physical security world where safety played second fiddle to some other security goal. I suppose we could sometimes make some loose correlation between the threat of reduced alcohol sales and gate searches, but really we’re talking about using security as a tool for a goal other than safety.
I remember doing a facility walk-through with a facilities management inspector and a rep from the concert promoter before a Beastie Boys show. The promoter was willing to pay for ticket takers and gate searchers, but seemed confused when the inspector and myself told him we’d have to hire security guards for all the emergency exits and couldn’t just chain them to keep people out.
On another occasion I was supervising at a Guns and Roses/Metallica show back when G&R was inciting riots to support their drug habits. Axl decided to go for a drive after the opening song, and Slash was up to about 15 minutes on his guitar solo while we (and the Denver police) tracked down the limo. Quiet word was spread to us supervisor types that if we got the word, we were to pull all our people back stage to protect the gear. There’d already been one nasty riot on this tour.
Now I’ll admit that there was a personal safety aspect, but the decision was to let the house go and just protect the gear and people back stage. Rather than set up some safe zones for the innocent public we were going to let the house tear itself apart.
So even when security is about safety, it might not be about your safety.
We got Axl back and man-handled (no joke) him back on stage where a few biker/bouncer-types stood just off stage to keep him there at all costs. No riot, but a really crappy show after a great start by Metallica.
Maybe that makes a better story than proof of my case, but I think you get the point. Security is a tool to enforce controls. Despite what the dictionary says, this often has little to do with safety as we commonly think about it, or may even sacrifice your safety for someone else’s.