Comments on: Colour Deaf

By: Thomas Galwyn

Thomas Galwyn — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:36:25 +0000

I was merely stating that we are informed that the security level *is* Orange, and no longer that is has been *elevated* to Orange (an interesting subtlety IMO).

Sadly, I will forever associate the security warning in the PA with the Terminal B restrooms at MCO (the reverse is true, tragically). So you are right: the security warning is about as effective as an enticement to have a “merry, merry Chrismas” while having a miserable time in the mall on December 23rd. The mind ends up treating both as elevator music.

By: Martin Suter

Martin Suter — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:17:57 +0000

Thomas - Thanks for your comments. I’m wondering whether we fly through the same Orlando airport because that’s where I hear it droning over the PA. Perhaps you’ve proven my theory that it doesn’t rise over the noise floor unless you make a point of listening for it! And if you don’t “hear” it, then it cannot be effective.

Martin

By: Thomas Galwyn

Thomas Galwyn — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:13:53 +0000

Using a colour-coded scheme is a shrewd way of preventing the Agency from ever being accused of mislabelling the actual threat level in case of a terrorist attack. After all, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s get away with rating the default risk of a bond issue using combinations of letters from the Latin alphabet. Their dismal performance in assessing the risk of CDOs in recent years only underscores the fact that arcane labelling mechanisms provide hints at best, but never deliver actionable information. If we expected these agencies to provide numbers with actual units instead, we could hold them accountable for their performance. Would you be satisfied with a National Hurricane Center stating that the “Hurricane threat level is Purple and the maximum sustained winds are rated BB+”?

With that said, I was relieved when my local Orlando airport stopped repeating that the “security threat level has been *elevated* to Orange”. It has been “Orange” for as long as I can remember. Does the fact that it may have been “Yellow” some time in the last decade constitute a permanent “elevation”? Apparently somebody realized that there was no need to provide trend data on an already murky piece of information!

By: rog

rog — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:28:53 +0000

Martin, he found it b/c I emailed it to him. (Charles and I know each other from several user groups in the SoCal area, particularly UUASC and SoCalLinux)

By: Martin Suter

Martin Suter — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:39:09 +0000

Charles - Not sure how you managed to find my blog, but thanks for your comments. I agree that there is a need for security protocols and standard operating procedures for government, military and appropriate private sector bodies as well as with your assertion regarding the complexity.

Your point regarding the public not fully grasping the complexity is similar to that which I was trying to make. If we simply tune out the constant background noise to such a degree that it has no effect on behavior, it has lost all efficacy. If, on the other hand, security notifications were made when necessary, a la Amber Alerts, we’d all pay a lot more attention and react appropriately.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!

By: Charles Wyble

Charles Wyble — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:31:04 +0000

So the threat levels are meant to correspond to threat and alert con levels already in use by the government and military. The threat level corresponds to them and is for internal coordination / protocol.

It also allows for various private sector partners to execute corresponding response activities.

Emergency preparedness and national security are large fields with lots of complexity. Something the public will never really grasp, for better or worse.