Cedar Point new security checkpoint

Pointbuzz: a site where a lot of responses to complaints about long lines are "well simply don't go to the park then". However, the same people complain about how Cedar Point's extra precautions being taken is taking too long for them to enter the park.

By the way, I can assure you that anybody who has wanded you prior to entering the park is not a part timer. Full time seasonal employee, yes. Part time employee, no.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just trying to help everybody see that there is a different vision of safety and these baby steps could be steps in the right direction. Obviously there is a reason for these being implemented.

Well, what's happening here is at least better than Great Adventure and Universal...

Yes, there are many reasons these have been put in place at so many entertainment venues. I remain unconvinced that enhanced security is the primary goal. I go to parks despite the needless security theater at the gate, doesn't mean I have to like it :-)

Let me grant your point that they're full time seasonal employees. What are their occupations the rest of the year? Let me further grant that some of them are people who work security year round and enjoy having a regular gig. In most cases, they still have no legal authority to detain anyone; they need to wait for the police. Any person intending harm in the park can proceed as planned and wreak havoc until the police arrive.

My complaint isn't that I have to wait longer to enter the park, it's that the security theater is just that, a show.

TwistedWicker77 said:

However, the same people complain about how Cedar Point's extra precautions being taken is taking too long for them to enter the park.

That is not the argument that's being made against this security theater, regardless of how many times you and others repeat it.

Then maybe you can enlighten me. Maybe you've said it before, but perhaps I have overlooked your opinion on this matter. I'm willing to see your side.

You keep implying that the only complaint against these checkpoints is that we just don't like waiting in line for them. There has been a much more complex and nuanced argument against them throughout this conversation (efficacy, greater societal implications, etc.).

^^It's simple - repeat 'security theater' as many times as possible and tout its lack of effectiveness without any proof while completely avoiding the fact that it costs for-profit companies massive payrolls and install investments to implement.
Oh... and ignore that it's part of an overall security plan and not the only piece to the puzzle.
Like your horn on your car might not be the most active security feature by its probably the most used and effective deterrent.

dj, what I want you to explain to me is YOUR opinion on how this implementation is a waste. Rather than giving broad cues, please explain the pros/cons of this new form of "security". Or at least explain a scenario as to how it can create a nuisance to each guest, in turn, reducing revenue for the park. I very well may agree with you.

Goodness, I sound like a professor asking for an in class essay.

XS NightClub said:

^^It's simple - repeat 'security theater' as many times as possible and tout its lack of effectiveness without any proof...

Again, ignoring what people are saying doesn't make it go away.

TSA Employees Have a 95% Failure Rate, and 15 Other Terrifying Facts

...while completely avoiding the fact that it costs for-profit companies massive payrolls and install investments to implement.

Again, I'm pretty sure this has been addressed as well (it's frankly not worth it to go back and check, because I'm sure you'll continue to ignore the complexity of the argument regardless). In short, there is value in making gullible people feel warm and fuzzy, in addition to potentially lower insurance premiums.

And yes, there is some usefulness of this security theater as actual security - it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. The complexity of the argument comes from whether or not the benefit outweighs the negative impact (inconveniencing of guests, ineffectiveness, creating a different, perhaps more appealing target outside the gates, etc.).

...and ignore that it's part of an overall security plan and not the only piece to the puzzle.

So because they have several effective security methods they should add more, even if they're not effective? That's laughably illogical. If I'm a rough carpenter who uses a hammer and saw to great effect, does that mean I should also buy a soldering iron?

Like your horn on your car might not be the most active security feature by its probably the most used and effective deterrent.

Right, as if more than a few people have ever used their horn for anything other than to impotently vent their road rage.

XS NightClub said:
avoiding the fact that it costs for-profit companies massive payrolls and install investments to implement.

I don't know about all that. Two or three close to minimum wage workers at the gate are not massive payrolls. As far as the equipment, not really, about $2000 with free shipping and lifetime support.

http://www.metaldefender.com

Or, it may be something like Tenable offering free walkthrough equipment with a three year monitoring contract. You never know. Two grand is cheap enough that I can install security theater to guard my house from any drunken friends that might want to sneak sharp bottle openers in.

I was going to comment, but DJ expressed what I wanted to say far more eloquently that I would have. Excuse me while I go vote him up...

...voted! I know my propensity for going on at length, so posts you've seen me make on topics like this have generally spent half an hour being edited down before I hit "submit reply". I try to find the line between "I find this fascinating, here's everything I know about it" and "nobody wants to read 10,000 words on this subject." :-) Sometimes I err too much on the side of caution.

I often reference TSA because it's a clear reference point. TSA has, for over 15 years, repeatedly failed massively on tests that TSA was specifically told when they would happen and what the investigators would be looking for.

I'm sorry, but one of my objections to security theater is that if TSA, with thousands of full time employees and very sophisticated equipment that you and I have paid for fails 95% of the time .... well, no one has so far convinced me that part-time or full-time seasonal employees using much less sophisticated equipment are going to have a better success rate.

Ah yes, TSA... a government agency that fails at doing its job effectively? Shocking.
Department of motor vehicles, department of veteran affairs, etc...
Look at FedEx and UPS as examples of where an endlessly funded government agency can't efficiently do its job and the private sector can.
Just because the TSA and private companies both use magnetometers doesn't make them analogous.
But it suits the endless 'security theater' repetition mantra.

TSA should be far superior to security theater set up at parks or stadiums. They have more training and much more advanced equipment. So, logically they ARE much better. Which is why they are used as an example as to why security theater is a fail.

The postal service should be far superior to UPS and FedEx then too.

The USPS is doing just fine.

http://annualreport.van.fedex.com/2016/

Yes, the postal service is a beacon of profitability.

https://www.thoughtco.com/postal-service-losses-by-year-3321043

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/17/news/usps-debt-limit/index.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/02/13/Postal-Service-De...45-Billion

USPS loses money because it has to operate under the absurd restrictions placed on it by the Republicans regarding pensions. No other government agency, and no business, has to operate under such terms.

USPS, aside from that, is doing fine. It should be noted that FedEx and UPS turn over large amounts of packages to USPS for delivery in areas where it isn't profitable for those for profit companies to operate.

And what Pete said about TSA.

noggin said:

USPS loses money because it has to operate under the absurd restrictions placed on it by the Republicans regarding pensions. No other government agency, and no business, has to operate under such terms.

Exactly. H.R. 6407.

I think people here miss the point.

Yes the TSA does suck, they aren't catching threats as they happen, and they have a much more vital role in security. However, identifying active threats is only part of their responsibility. The overall mission is deterrence. You think they MAY not identify you, but there's the what if. There's the they could catch me. There's the I don't know what all they have or what they're doing, etc. Random measures and presence are enough to deter most.

For instance, we have a nuclear arsenal, everyone knows it, but we don't have to resort to it. Through deterrence alone, we've never had to touch one for plenty of years. Because we could have a missile in a sub, plane, or launched from a silo / mobile launcher instantaneously. Deterrence is key here.

So yes, they may miss this and that, but the visual deterrence is enough for most idiots.

Lastly, for their security setup, what do you think they're primary objective is? Do you think they're there to stop a dirty bomb or some suicide vest? No, the federal agencies are there for that. They're there to stop kids with pocket knives and the like. Plus this probably deters other things, such as people sneaking in beer cans (yes it happens).

So...it's here to stay, it has objectives, the park will run it fine (if you know how to run it better, I suggest working for them or sending them your suggestions), and seriously relax. This issue is so out of hand over this it's crazy. I'd expect more banter about 2017-2018 Mean Streak with the map leaked arguing over who's really wrong there, but this is just ridiculous.

thedevariouseffect said:

Do you think they're there to stop a dirty bomb or some suicide vest? No, the federal agencies are there for that. They're there to stop kids with pocket knives and the like. Plus this probably deters other things, such as people sneaking in beer cans (yes it happens).

If that's the case, then this security theater is even more absurd.

First, there's no way in hell we as a society would accept such heavy-handed security if not for the fear mongering that took place after 9/11.

Second, pocket knives and beer cans have been around for a long, long time, and the park has never had an issue containing those "threats" before. And given that violent crime is quite low from a historical perspective, these "threats" are practically non-existent. Anyone who thinks the world is a dangerous place watches way too much cable news.