AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
New "Clear Bag" Policy at Folsom
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Damn you. Rep!
My conversation with Rick:
BuffaloSoldier76
Unsound Meat
FYI, I did reach out with my pointed questions regarding how the decision was arrived at. We'll see if I get a response.
Based on what @AeroBuff99 posted, I think this is completely a function of the Department of Homeland Security making a recommendation and the liability for CU being off the charts if something happened and the university had ignored that DHS policy recommendation.
As was stated earlier, the only goal of this policy is to increase gameday concession revenue. All the other reasons are a smokescreen.
I'm curious, is this really a liablity issue for the university? in other words, if they take no action to screen people and someone brings in a weapon and kills others, can the university be heald legally accountable? could that liability be mitgiated by having people agree to a waiver when purchasing tickets?
Maybe the predecessor question is, what is the goal of these policies -- to (1) minimize liability (2) increase actual security for attendees (3) increased perceived security for attendees (4) increase concession revenue (5) other?
I genuinely don't feel there's much of a security threat at college football games, and would advocate to remove security screening at sports (and concert) venues. However, I suspect I'm in a minority and that there are people who worry about that kind of stuff, who might consider not attending a sports event without security screening in place, especially if asked to sign a liability waiver.
Maybe the predecessor question is, what is the goal of these policies -- to (1) minimize liability (2) increase actual security for attendees (3) increased perceived security for attendees (4) increase concession revenue (5) other?
I genuinely don't feel there's much of a security threat at college football games, and would advocate to remove security screening at sports (and concert) venues. However, I suspect I'm in a minority and that there are people who worry about that kind of stuff, who might consider not attending a sports event without security screening in place, especially if asked to sign a liability waiver.
Sure - the Aurora theater got sued (and won, then turned around and asked the victims to pay them $700k in legal fees)
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/aurora-theater-shooting-cinemark-lawsuit-dismissed-1201804433/
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/aurora-theater-shooting-cinemark-lawsuit-dismissed-1201804433/
You are looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.
BuffaloSoldier76
Unsound Meat
In my opinion, it is #3. They might slightly boost the concession revenue, but this is all a big pacifier for the public. We're doing something that seems like it will increase safety if you just look at it on the surface, but it wouldn't actually prevent anything bad from happening anymore so than just using the policies we already had in place.
damn, now we're going to need clear footwear too.
I looked, but can't find jelly sandals in a men's 14.
If Independence Community College doesn't know where to buy them, I'll need to email Jeff Bridges and see where he got his.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Interesting perspective. Do you think the victims of terrorism worldwide assumed it could happen to them and took the risk anyway, or thought that it probably wouldn't? Why (without these kinds of measures) would you think a football stadium full of people isn't a juicy target for a terrorist?
precedent -- lack of terrorist attacks on US college football stadiums. yes, I realize it could happen, but I'm unconvinced that risk is probable enough to warrant this type of mitigation and unconvinced that these mitigations do much, if anything, to prevent a terrorist attack.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Believe what you want, but your logic is unconvincing. There were no terrorist attacks anywhere until it happened the first time. While I agree these checks cannot possibly prevent an attack, they very well could limit the outcome to outside the stadium, resulting in fewer casualties.
The real answer is to never gather anywhere, ever.
A crowd of people is always a potential target. Always.
Security theater methods do nothing but move the target around. They don't actually make anything more safe. Inside the stadium or outside, the crowd of people is still a target. And, in many ways the large line outside the stadium is a "softer" target with more casualties.
But the proles and their bureaucratic overlords in DHS (which is empirically the worst managed federal department, and that's a pretty high (low?) bar to clear) "think" they are more safe as a result of these ideas.
Actual, real safety doesn't matter, just the feeling of being safe does. Security theater accomplishes this: people "feel safe," and administrators feel good because they've done something to make people feel safe.
When the reality is, in the real world, the only major terrorist attack on a stadium event to happen in the past decade was an attack on the lines of people outside the stadium. And we've just instituted a policy change that, again in the real world where other stadiums have made this same change, increases the length of those lines.
But it does make you "feel" safe, and that's what's really important.
So because there has been only 1 attack, and it came outside the stadium, that's therefore the bigger concern? Interesting logic.
Common sense suggests terrorists value the inside more as a target. I believe there's been intelligence to back that up.
BuffaloSoldier76
Unsound Meat
Steve Pizzi was kind enough to address some of the questions we had posed earlier in this thread via email.
1) What data on security improvement led to the decision to implement this policy, or was it simply a decision to follow the "best practices" standard set by the NFL as recommended by the Department of Homeland Security?
a. We have been working with our peers both in the NFL and the PAC-12 on gathering information on policies and procedures so we could address the needs here on campus for over a year now. It is a standard that is being carried out in facilities like ours across the country and viewed as a best practice.
2) How has the data shown that the NFL clear bag policy has decreased the number of, or threat of, terror attacks in stadiums?
a. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict a terror attack; nor is there a way to quantify the number of terror attacks that may have been prevented as a result from any security measure. The policies that are being implemented help us vet out any items coming into the facility that could potentially be harmful to anyone. Our goal is to keep everyone as safe as we can.
3) What evidence have you seen to illustrate that the stated goal of expediting entry into stadiums has been achieved at any facility where a like policy has been deployed?
a. By reducing the time it takes to look through bags with pockets and compartments it will decrease the time it takes to vet out patrons with clear bags or no bags at all.
4) Will you be adding additional entry lines and screeners to offset any increased screening times that adding this policy may incidentally incur due to initial lack of training of screening personnel and uneducated ticket holders who get all the way to the gate with a non-clear bag?
a. We don’t feel this will increase the screening time. We flex this number based on expected attendance anyway so the numbers are not always the same. By reducing the time it takes to go through bags we feel the lines are going to move quicker for our patrons to enter the facility.
5) Will there be separate "express" entry lines for people who are not carrying bags into the stadium?
a. We are planning on have express lanes. We are looking into how many lanes we are able to implement around the facility. .
6) Is there going to be significant, prominent signage near parking lots and routes of access to the stadium to remind people of the clear bag policy?
a. Yes, we will also be handing out flyers and clear some bags as well to help patrons who may not have heard about the message yet.
1) What data on security improvement led to the decision to implement this policy, or was it simply a decision to follow the "best practices" standard set by the NFL as recommended by the Department of Homeland Security?
a. We have been working with our peers both in the NFL and the PAC-12 on gathering information on policies and procedures so we could address the needs here on campus for over a year now. It is a standard that is being carried out in facilities like ours across the country and viewed as a best practice.
2) How has the data shown that the NFL clear bag policy has decreased the number of, or threat of, terror attacks in stadiums?
a. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict a terror attack; nor is there a way to quantify the number of terror attacks that may have been prevented as a result from any security measure. The policies that are being implemented help us vet out any items coming into the facility that could potentially be harmful to anyone. Our goal is to keep everyone as safe as we can.
3) What evidence have you seen to illustrate that the stated goal of expediting entry into stadiums has been achieved at any facility where a like policy has been deployed?
a. By reducing the time it takes to look through bags with pockets and compartments it will decrease the time it takes to vet out patrons with clear bags or no bags at all.
4) Will you be adding additional entry lines and screeners to offset any increased screening times that adding this policy may incidentally incur due to initial lack of training of screening personnel and uneducated ticket holders who get all the way to the gate with a non-clear bag?
a. We don’t feel this will increase the screening time. We flex this number based on expected attendance anyway so the numbers are not always the same. By reducing the time it takes to go through bags we feel the lines are going to move quicker for our patrons to enter the facility.
5) Will there be separate "express" entry lines for people who are not carrying bags into the stadium?
a. We are planning on have express lanes. We are looking into how many lanes we are able to implement around the facility. .
6) Is there going to be significant, prominent signage near parking lots and routes of access to the stadium to remind people of the clear bag policy?
a. Yes, we will also be handing out flyers and clear some bags as well to help patrons who may not have heard about the message yet.
we should worry about this the next time Folsom is full.
Prove it.
Terrorists want to cause terror. The crowd outside, in line, is:
1. More densely packed than it is inside the stadium. This means an equally sized bomb blast will hurt more people, and also more people would get hit by a spray of bullets.
2. Easier to target.
I would note that #2 is true regardless of any security theater measures taken. Just the simple fact that you have someone checking tickets makes it far easier to target the crowd outside the stadium than inside.
Any security theater measures taken make the outside more vulnerable and the inside only marginally less.
Props for the use of the word "Proles".
So the solution would be to tear down Folsom, leaving just the field and pipe in the cheers as we root for the Buffs in front of our televisions.
Common sense does not suggest that - history suggests terrorist like to cause the largest amount of damage in the easiest way possible that results in the most lasting psychological and physical changes to society after. To that end a large vebid at the south gates would be far easier and far more effective. No where in the stadium is as packed as the south gates and no where has the added law enforcement bonus.
An educated gentlemen would never stoop so low as to use the portmanteau "sheeple."
Neither would I.
somebody
Well-Known Member
I agree with most of this, e.g. somehow a quart baggie full of potentially explosive liquid is the TSA sweet spot. WTF good is theater that fools no one? But people outside an enclosure at least have an opportunity to flee - those inside are trapped.
What bothers me is not actual security measures. What bothers me are hassles to give an illusion of security but have no real value to security & also allow abuses of personal privacy & Liberty with no tangible payoff. It's a bad path for a free society. Because what's the answer when something does happen? More symbolic crap that doesn't make us more safe but makes us less free.
Impossible. The Pac can't be seen on TV.