I think this is getting to be a fit case to think about *who* should be paranoid. And to what degree
As an analogy, perimeter security/guards are EXPECTED to be paranoid/hypervigilant, their reporting/control systems attuned to that. Someone leading that system is expected ... +
As an analogy, perimeter security/guards are EXPECTED to be paranoid/hypervigilant, their reporting/control systems attuned to that. Someone leading that system is expected ... +
... to be able to discriminate between levels of threats and take appropriate action. Including raising of a general ALARM.
The protected, OTOH, are expected to ease off - because they have someone to be paranoid on their behalf. Why have these systems evolved this way? +
The protected, OTOH, are expected to ease off - because they have someone to be paranoid on their behalf. Why have these systems evolved this way? +
There's a significant cost to triggering a general ALARM each time a guard hears a rustle outside the fence. But, ignoring it could - in a #BlackSwan case, end up the perimeter being overrun.
Which means that the system affords a buffer - via IMMEDIATE response. +
Which means that the system affords a buffer - via IMMEDIATE response. +
The guards and the security director HAVE TO take actions - AS IF each and every threat is REAL. But they do not have to pass it back on to the protected. As long as they can execute their drills (refined over time) unfailingly, there is no need to raise the highest level ... +
... of alarm yet. It's not as if waking up the protected in the night with "Panic! The end is NIGH" is going to work - unless it is the last resort and there is imminent/inescapable likelihood of the perimeter being run over. In which case, it is everyone for himself.
+
+
That's the end of the analogy. In this case, it makes sense IF there is a lack of trust in the security system/early warning or there's reasonable grounds to suspect that they're going to be lackadaisical in their response - that it makes sense to warn the protected ... +
... via a general ALARM, from elsewhere or by someone else savvy to it, that "Hey! Wake up!!! Your guards are sleeping"
The effect of such alarms is also different on different classes of people. For trained personnel, it synchronizes response. For the general populace ... +
The effect of such alarms is also different on different classes of people. For trained personnel, it synchronizes response. For the general populace ... +
... as we have learnt via our social media experiment of the last decade, it seeds chaos. And also provides fertile grounds for conspiracy theories and other fear-mongering tactics which could be employed by any adversary of the protected population/nation/state.
+
+
I think it should be clear from this - the Q that @_benoux_ is actually asking: Do we have enough grounds to suspend all trust in the people recruited, trained and employed to manage the paranoia buffer and act responsibly for our protection? How do we decide that?
Fin.
Fin.
