On Friday, I got an email from KU's new safety alert system, implemented after the Virginia Tech shootings. About 15 minutes later, I got another telling me:
UNIVERSITY POLICE HAVE COMPLETED A COMPREHENSIVE SEARCH OF CAMPUS IN RESPONSE TO AN UCONFIRMED REPORT.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY THREAT AND EVERYONE ON CAMPUS IS ADVISED TO RETURN TO NORMAL OPERATIONS.
In my humble opinion, they should have waited those 15 minutes rather than sending out this meaningless warning. I want to point out before you even read this that it was a completely false alarm:
SAFETY ALERT
KU PUBLIC SAFETY HAS RECEIVED AN UNCONFIRMED REPORT OF A MAN CARRYING A RIFLE NEAR WESCOE HALL. KU AND LAWRENCE POLICE HAVE RESPONDED TO THE AREA AND ARE CONDUCTING A PERMETER SEARCH. REPEAT— THIS IS AN UNCONFIRMED REPORT.
THE CAMPUS IS NOT IN LOCKDOWN BUT IF YOU SEE ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR ON CAMPUS, CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY. IF YOU ARE IN THE CENTRAL CAMPUS AREA, PLEASE REMAIN INDOORS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
Unconfirmed reports, as anyone in the news business will tell you, only create fear and confusion. And anyone who has told children the story of the boy who cried "wolf!" know that repeated false alarms make people less attentive to real threats. This message did no one any good.
When KU created this alert system, they sent an email telling people to provide their phone numbers or emergency contact email so that they could alert us to these sorts of events. I didn't bother giving a phone number, because I figured this is exactly what would happen. The odds of an alarm being bogus so vastly outweigh the chances that it's a legitimate threat that such a warning system would be without merit.
At least that system lets me opt out. The federal government's security apparatus seems to be operating with about the same precision, focusing on attention-grabbing but irrelevant programs like seizing water bottles and toothpaste tubes from airline passengers, while leaving the ports unsecured. Bruce Schneier calls this "security theater," since it is intended to give the appearance of security without actually securing anything.
- Log in to post comments
Josh: I understand what you're saying, but I think you're lacking some real-time decision-making context here.
At LJW, we started hearing the police scanner traffic around 9:30. Given that every available law enforcement officer in Lawrence was being called to the scene to search for the unconfirmable gunman, we felt like we had to put up notice on our Web site. Two sentences. We didn't want to raise a necessary alarm, but we thought we needed to explain the activity that would sure attract the attention of anybody in place to see it.
And things went haywire.
People on campus saw our notice and immediately started complaining on our message boards that KU hadn't notified them. Lots of complaints, very vehement.
Word spread quickly, putting KU administration on defense. In that context, they kind of HAD to send out the e-mail notification, just so people would be reassured that SOMEBODY was thinking about them.
Back in the NewsCenter,I took a call from a sobbing woman angry we hadn't interrupted Channel 6 with live coverage of the situation � a situation that smelled, from the beginning, like less than what had been reported to police. Her family was on campus.
And, of course, it turned out to be nothing. But that wasn't a sure thing from the start, and certainly police took it seriously enough to search buildings on campus.
So it's tricky. How do you keep people informed � and given Virginia Tech, they're *demanding* the information � without making them hysterical? I don't have an answer. I suspect the KU officials who sent out the alert above don't, either.
You can follow the comments thread on our Web site here to get a sense of what I'm talking about: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun/01/police_searching_man_ku_campus…
They're already hysterical. Trying to accomodate them will only reinforce the behavior.
I think you may have just torn a rather large hole in the arguments of concealed-carry advocates. Suppose that message went out and half the students and staff are packing. Quick as presto, you've got a small army of would-be heroes swarming out to stop the next Cho Seung-Hui before he can do any more damage.
Depending on the sensitivity of the report threshold, false positives may necessarily be more common than correct positives.
decrepitoldfool:
Great strawman! Of course, you have no idea just how those with concealed carry licenses would act in that situation. From your comment I suspect it is way outside of your experience. I notice that it didn't stop you from making the most dire speculation possible.
[I note that in many states a fair bit of training is required for a concealed carry license. From what I've seen, that training often makes people less likely to want to insert themselves unnecessarily into situations.]
Ahem. We didn't want to raise an *unnecessary* alarm.
Ahcuah: "Great strawman!"
Thanks, I do try. Certainly training will help. But human nature being what it is, a certain percentage of even well-trained people misbehave when pressure, real or imagined, is on. Witness soldiers and policemen, both of whom have far more training and supervision, occasionally stepping in deep brown.
Generally I like the idea of concealed carry (because it gives criminals something important to think about) but this situation gives me pause.
Joel, thanks for added context. I didn't realize that news had already leaked out and was generating some sort of panic. We might disagree over whether KU's response was ideal, but I agree that the clearly needed to do something.