Olympic security: six years of planning for 17 days of glory

Mar 1, 1998 12:00 PM, Kate Doherty

           

Last month, as the world focused on Olympic history in the making at the Nagano Winter Olympic Games, security professionals at Access Control's Security Systems Integration Conference and Expo in Atlanta turned their attention to a tale of how Olympic security history was made. The tale was told on Feb. 18 by Bob Lang, director of research security for the Georgia Institute of Technology, home to the Global Olympic Village and some 15,000 athletes during the 1996 Summer Games in Atlanta. Lang recalled the day in 1990 when the Olympic organizing committee named Atlanta as the host city of the 1996 Summer Games. He was awaiting the announcement with his family, and as the word "Atlanta" rang out, his family broke into jubilant cheers and wild applause in concert with the rest of the city. Lang remembers taking a deep breath and saying, "Here we go." And a six-year go of it the security planning was. According to Lang, never before had a university played such a large role in an Olympics as Georgia Tech was asked to play. The site of the biggest Olympic Village in the history of the Games, Georgia Tech also provided two of the most popular venues - aquatics and boxing. Lang indicated there were some 15,000 athletes and 10,000 support personnel to control access for each day. The aquatics center alone drew more than 400,000 spectators, he added. The most visible security precaution was a $10 million perimeter security system around the village that included a 10-mile-long fence, 120 cameras, numerous sensors and detectors (including infrared underground sensors) and police officers stationed 100 feet apart around the entire perimeter. It was all monitored from an impressive security command center staffed by representatives of agencies and offices with a security stake in the Games. "It all worked," Lang said. "No attempts were made to penetrate the system." Intangibles such as training and teamwork were equally important to securing the Olympic Village. Some 7,000 Georgia Tech staffers were specially accredited for the Games, and the sheer number of people and agencies involved in the Olympic security planning structure demanded careful coordination, explained Lang. Groups involved included: n The Olympic Security Support Group; n Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games Security; n Olympic Security Planning Coordinating Committee; n The Integrated Planning Group; n Agency Planning Offices; and n The Olympic Village Subcommittee. Lessons learned from the Olympic experience, said Lang, were to get as many people involved as possible in advance planning, and to define agency roles early, including leadership roles and budget considerations. Establishing a central point of contact for all involved and establishing security standards were also important. Most crucial to the safety of the Olympic villagers, he added, and what underscored all security efforts undertaken by him and his team, was contingency planning, which, in one instance, meant simply being flexible when President Clinton paid an unscheduled visit to Atlanta and the Secret Service took over.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

SUBSCRIBE

Select an Issue April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 December 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 1, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 IP Security Supplement May 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 1, 2007 School Security December 1, 2006 November 1, 2006 October 1, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 February 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 December 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 1, 2005 May 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 February 1, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 1, 2004 November 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 September 1, 2004 August 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 June 1, 2004 May 1, 2004 April 1, 2004 March 1, 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 October 1, 1997 September 1, 1997 August 1, 1997 July 1, 1997 June 1, 1997 May 1, 1997 April 1, 1997 March 1, 1997 February 1, 1997 January 1, 1997

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue