PSA: Don't film security processes at Disney or elsewhere

[ChrisFL]

Someone on twitter/X has posted some video footage of some changes to the security process at Disneyland in one of the parking entrances. People rightfully called them out in the comments for this being not allowed and generally considered bad in general. So in response, they decided to turn off comments instead of doing the right thing and deleting the tweet.

There are MANY reasons why security processes should not be filmed and posted for public viewing online and I used to think this kind of thing was obvious but I guess some people just don't learn.

Also, while I hate to say this, I know of at least 3 times in the past where Disney parks were considered potential targets for attacks, so no it isn't "only airports" etc. that deal with threats. One was the Pulse Nightclub shooter who considered going to Disney Springs, one was Al Qaeda before 9/11 (from what I've heard) and another was some young teens in a cult in Orlando who were caught before they could carry out any attack.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sorry, I'm torn on this one. I get that there's a security risk by taking photos or videos of security. BUT, I also feel there needs to be some transparency of what the process is.

 

[ChrisFL]

Sorry, I'm torn on this one. I get that there's a security risk by taking photos or videos of security. BUT, I also feel there needs to be some transparency of what the process is.

You could do that by saying what the process is, without the video

 

[sam_gordon]

You could do that by saying what the process is, without the video

Sometimes video does a better job.

 

[ChrisFL]

Sometimes video does a better job.

It's literally not allowed though and it makes everyone less safe. Why is that a difficult question?

 

[cabanafrau]

Sorry, I'm torn on this one. I get that there's a security risk by taking photos or videos of security. BUT, I also feel there needs to be some transparency of what the process is.

(No snark. Not a gotcha question. Just a straight up question.) What are your reasons for saying there needs to be some transparency of what the process is?

IMO if the security process is not overly or inappropriately invasive there's not much reason for concern. It's private property where the owners have the right to set their rules. If you disagree with the rules, don't visit their property.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's literally not allowed though and it makes everyone less safe. Why is that a difficult question?

Never said it was allowed. I'll disagree on "making everyone less safe".

(No snark. Not a gotcha question. Just a straight up question.) What are your reasons for saying there needs to be some transparency of what the process is?

IMO if the security process is not overly or inappropriately invasive there's not much reason for concern. It's private property where the owners have the right to set their rules. If you disagree with the rules, don't visit their property.

The transparency is good to show the process is "not overly or inappropriately invasive". I don't think I ever said it NEEDS to happen.

 

[cabanafrau]

Never said it was allowed. I'll disagree on "making everyone less safe".

The transparency is good to show the process is "not overly or inappropriately invasive". I don't think I ever said it NEEDS to happen.

You did say you "feel it needs", I didn't ask it that way or bold it as some kind of trap. I did genuinely mean it as a straightforward question.

So for you a security process is inherently suspect and requires video proof to demonstrate it's not over the line invasive? Does that apply to a security guard driving around a parking lot or a plainclothes theft prevention person in a store? What about the store personnel stationed at an exit to check your receipt, such as at Costco? How about the security processes in place at stadiums and other venues today? What about putting your phone in a Faraday Bag at a concert or other performance? If not, what's different to you about those security processes that they don't require the transparency?

ETA Sorry for the list of questions. I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective.

 

[Dan Murphy]

on twitter/X

So in response, they decided to turn off comments instead of doing the right thing and deleting the tweet.

Figures

 

[ChrisFL]

Also, to be clear, the tweet was about them being too slow now, nothing about being more invasive, etc.. Something that's not really important in the grand scheme of things for them to keep the post up.

If there was some super invasive process that was happening I could understand but that complaint should go directly to Disney.

 

[Sykes]

If a security process can be defeated because of posted video footage then it was mostly worthless to start with. Security by obscurity is barely better than no security at all. Having said that, I also concur with you that guests should respect the policies and procedures in place at private businesses.

Tangentially, it is fully legal to film TSA checkpoints at US airports as long as the act of filming doesn’t interfere with the screening itself.

 

[_19disnA]

There are MANY reasons why security processes should not be filmed and posted for public viewing online and I used to think this kind of thing was obvious but I guess some people just don't learn.

I agree. In this day and age of social media, many people seem to lack common sense and want to post things online they really shouldn't. Part of how you go about defeating ANY type of security is studying their procedures to observe what they are/aren't doing (which might include taking video). That is partly why companies (including Disney) are never going to publicly discuss their security protocols, nor should they feel a need to.

 

[sam_gordon]

You did say you "feel it needs", I didn't ask it that way or bold it as some kind of trap. I did genuinely mean it as a straightforward question.

So for you a security process is inherently suspect and requires video proof to demonstrate it's not over the line invasive? Does that apply to a security guard driving around a parking lot or a plainclothes theft prevention person in a store? What about the store personnel stationed at an exit to check your receipt, such as at Costco? How about the security processes in place at stadiums and other venues today? What about putting your phone in a Faraday Bag at a concert or other performance? If not, what's different to you about those security processes that they don't require the transparency?

ETA Sorry for the list of questions. I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective.

OK, let me try to explain my stance...

First, I agree security is needed. And I agree, videos or photos of security procedures can make it easier to subvert those procedures.
HOWEVER, I do feel SOME transparency IS necessary. It's not that every security process is inherently suspect. BUT, humans (and computers) can make mistakes. Not only make mistakes, but go too far. Simply describing (in words) what happened results in a "he said/she said" argument. Why do you think people want police to wear (and use) body cameras? I do think there should be at least some third party oversight.

And everyone is correct, if you don't want to follow the security protocols put in place by a business, don't frequent them. I have no issue with that.

 

[cabanafrau]

OK, let me try to explain my stance...

First, I agree security is needed. And I agree, videos or photos of security procedures can make it easier to subvert those procedures.
HOWEVER, I do feel SOME transparency IS necessary. It's not that every security process is inherently suspect. BUT, humans (and computers) can make mistakes. Not only make mistakes, but go too far. Simply describing (in words) what happened results in a "he said/she said" argument. Why do you think people want police to wear (and use) body cameras? I do think there should be at least some third party oversight.

And everyone is correct, if you don't want to follow the security protocols put in place by a business, don't frequent them. I have no issue with that.

Thanks. I guess I do and don't understand where you're coming from.

Personally haven't been to Disney in just over ten years now, so I can't say, but are the security checks physical now, as in a physical pat down? I didn't think so. I believe there are still bag checks and I thought there were metal detectors. If you go to an NFL game or a Taylor Swift concert bags need to be clear and under a specific size range and you go through a metal detector, so similar process with Disney allowing customers to bring in much more, knowing it will be checked by security.

I don't see the room for he said/she said in the Disney situation, unless I'm missing something or don't understand the current process?

As far as the police bodycam situation, I do indeed understand the need. I hear it argued on a regular basis at work. I don't find it in any way equivalent to what I understand a Disney security check is -- far from it. TSA might be argued as more closely akin to a police encounter, but more like a second cousin than a sibling relationship.

Third party oversight of what exactly, as well as why and by whom?

I understand security checks are a hassle nobody enjoys. I understand there's plenty of disagreement about "security theater" and the fact checks are useless. Cold hard reality is if the hassle and the theater keeps one weapon from entering a park or a stadium and being used to harm people and take lives it suddenly seems worth the hassle and the theatrics.