Avoiding even the appearance of insecurity

Mar 1, 2006 12:00 PM, LARRY ANDERSON, EDITOR

Those wishing to maintain the highest level of ethical behavior have long been known to strive “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” The phrase isn't meant to suggest less emphasis on the actual, underlying ethical standards … and yet, when interpreted narrowly, the focus on how something appears to others seems almost to miss the point. The idea, of course, is that actual impropriety should be avoided as well as its appearance.

Lately, it seems our nation is suddenly focused on the need “to avoid even the appearance of insecurity,” for example, related to the proposed buyout of operations at six U.S. ports by a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates.

The proposal caused a political firestorm, and the plan was eventually dropped. There was broad opposition from both sides of the political aisle, and the backlash centered, it seemed, on avoiding “the appearance of insecurity.”

The discussion was not about actual threats or security failures or anything specific about the company involved. The logic seemed to dwell on the fact that it is an Arab country and it was Arab terrorists who planned and executed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And, oh yeah, our ports need to be protected.

It is discouraging to see a national conversation about security that is based more on politics than on actual threats.

Is it true that appearances about security matter as much as the reality? Shouldn't one instead label the concerns about the ports deal as unwarranted and perhaps irrational fears? If there were actual security risks associated with the ports deal, shouldn't they have been discussed while the controversy was going on? If that happened, I missed it.

One wonders if the whole thing is just another sign that our attention to security risks — real ones, that is, not politically expedient “appearances” of security risks that play well on the evening news — is waning.

Is it possible that we could get away from such distractions and focus again on the real problem? Please?

Distractions of all kinds are lurking at every turn for security professionals in the corporate environment as well as on the national stage.

Whether it is red state/blue state politics in the case of Homeland security, or corporate politics in the case of most of our readers; discussions about security can meander off track in a barrage of political rhetoric (or corporate-speak, as the case may be).

The challenge is to refocus the discussion on reality. Let's keep corporate discussions about security on track and grounded in principles of risk assessment.

Wish our government would do the same.

---

YOUR THOUGHTS

We are looking for reader feedback. E-mail larry.anderson@penton.com and tell us what you think!

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue