Security is a funny subject. The more secure you make things the more inconvenient they can become (e.g. having a password on your computer that you have to change every month might make your data, and your company's network, more secure, but it's not convenient to you). I never really mind stuff like that, I tend to treat security more seriously than most. Case in point, I got a security briefing when I first got here, it went like this:
Him: "...and we've got a 7pm curfew"
Me: "great, so is there a bed check?"
Him: "No, no, it's nothing like that it's an honor system. We try not inconvenience people."
Me: (disappointed) "Oh, so if I'm in the trunk of a car no one is going to start looking for me until late the next morning?"
Him: "...uh, I guess, I uh..."
Me: "so I've got all the downsides of a curfew but none of the upsides?"
Him: "...you know, no one has put it this way before..."
Likewise we've got the same security contractor as before for all of our transport outside the GZ. They, as before, have two types of cars: armored SUV's and thin-skinned (not armored) sedans. They say the SUV's draw too much attention and that you are better off in the sedans. This is BS. First of all, the American SUV's draw too much attention but Japanese SUV's are not all that uncommon here. Second of all, the best of both worlds would be an armored sedan (duh), but those have all been snapped up.
We've got two cars down right now. Both SUV's. One was hit by gunfire (AK-47 drive-by on BIAP road). The other by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device). In both cases the passengers were fine. In both cases one or more people in the car would have been killed if the vehicle was thin-skinned. It's not that hard to look in a vehicle, SUV or sedan, and see that it's a bunch of non-Arabs (the UK security guys don't look local). I'll take an armored SUV over a thin-skinned sedan anyday. These thing take a licking and keep on ticking. Check it out.
Posted by rick at December 29, 2004 09:16 AM